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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites “A method of generating an explanation of artificial-intelligence-generated content corresponding to source content, the method comprising”; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
generating an explanation of artificial-intelligence-generated content corresponding to source content, the method comprising: embedding source content segments of the source content to generate input vectors of the source content segments; embedding generated content segments of the artificial-intelligence-generated content to generate output vectors of the generated content segments: These limitations recite a mathematical relationship of vectorized variables similar to organizing information and manipulating information, e.g. embedding…generating…embedding…generating, through mathematical correlations, e.g. embedding generated content segments of the artificial-intelligence-generated content to generate output vectors of the generated content segments and to generate an explanation of artificial-intelligence-generated content, as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A)(IV).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
outputting the explanation to a user interface device, wherein the explanation indicates generated result correspondences between the individual content segments of the source content and the individual generated content segments of the artificial-intelligence-generated content, based on defining the similarity correspondence between the individual content segments of the source content to the individual generated content segments of the artificial-intelligence-generated content: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely recites insignificant extra-solution activity of generic output to a user interface device of the explanation, wherein the explanation indicates generated result correspondences between the individual content segments of the source content and the individual generated content segments of the artificial-intelligence-generated content, based on defining the similarity correspondence between the individual content segments of the source content to the individual generated content segments of the artificial-intelligence-generated content. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting the explanation to a user interface device, wherein the explanation indicates generated result correspondences between the individual content segments of the source content and the individual generated content segments of the artificial-intelligence-generated content, based on defining the similarity correspondence between the individual content segments of the source content to the individual generated content segments of the artificial-intelligence-generated content which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity similar to presenting offers and gather statistics. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Claim 2
Step 1: a process, as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
wherein at least one of the source content segments and at least one of the generated content segments includes a sentence, a paragraph, a language phrase, a language term, audio content, image content, or video content: These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include a recitation of linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 3
Step 1: a process, as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
inputting the source content segments and the generated content segments to a generative artificial intelligence model: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely recite insignificant extra-solution activity of inputting the source content segments and the generated content segments to a generative artificial intelligence model. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
querying the generative artificial intelligence model to indicate a relevancy correspondence between each generated segment of the generated content segments and a corresponding input segment of the source content segments predicted most likely to generate the generated segment, each relevancy correspondence indicating a confidence score: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely recites querying the generative artificial intelligence model without details of how it is to be accomplished, e.g. no description of inventive steps of how querying the generative artificial intelligence model in the controller works other than only that it happens, and is equivalent of “apply it” 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include insignificant extra-solution activity of inputting the source content segments and the generated content segments to a generative artificial intelligence model which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity similar to presenting offers and gathering statistics. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Further additional elements include a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 4
Step 1: a process, as in claim 3.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as claim 3.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
wherein the explanation indicates at least one generated result correspondence selected between the individual content segments of the source content and the individual generated content segments of the artificial-intelligence-generated content: These elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include a recitation of linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 5
Step 1: a process, as in claim 3.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
selecting, for each corresponding pair of content segments, a similarity correspondence or a relevancy correspondence based on either a corresponding similarity score or a corresponding confidence score satisfying an interleaved explanation logic condition: These limitations recite a mathematical relationship similar to organizing information and manipulating, e.g. selecting, for each corresponding pair of content segments, a similarity correspondence or a relevancy correspondence, through mathematical correlation, e.g. based on either a corresponding similarity score or a corresponding confidence score satisfying an interleaved explanation logic condition.
adding the similarity correspondence or the relevancy correspondence selected for each corresponding pair of content segments to the explanation that is output to the user interface device: These limitations recite a mentally performable process with the aid of pen and paper of adding the similarity correspondence or the relevancy correspondence selected for each corresponding pair of content segments to the explanation that is output to the user interface device.
Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B: There are no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more. As such, the claim is patent ineligible.
Claim 6
Step 1: a process, as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
ranking the generated result correspondences to yield ranked generated result correspondences; and limiting the explanation to include a predefined number of the ranked generated result correspondences: These limitations recite a mathematical relationship of generated result correspondences similar to organizing and manipulating information, e.g. ranking, through mathematical correlations, e.g. to yield ranked generated result correspondences, and e.g. limiting the explanation, through mathematical correlations, e.g. to include a predefined number of the ranked generated result correspondences, as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A)(IV).
Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B: There are no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more. As such, the claim is patent ineligible.
Claim 7
Claim 1: a process, as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
providing a block list of content segments to be filtered out of the source content; and filtering out segments in the block list before determining the generated result correspondences between the individual content segments of the source content and the individual generated content segments of the artificial-intelligence-generated content: The limitations recite a mentally performable process with the aid of pen and paper of providing a block list of content segments to be filtered out of the source content and filtering out segments in the block list before determining the generated result correspondences between the individual content segments of the source content and the individual generated content segments of the artificial-intelligence-generated content.
Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B: There are no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more. As such, the claim is patent ineligible.
Claims 8-14
Step 1: These claims are directed to “A system for generating an explanation of artificial-intelligence-generated content corresponding to source content, the system comprising: one or more hardware processors”; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claims 8-14 recite substantially the same abstract ideas as in claims 1-7, respectively.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions recited in these claims are not integrated into a practical application. The only substantive difference between 8-14 and claims 1-7 is that claims 8-14 are directed to “A system for generating an explanation of artificial-intelligence-generated content corresponding to source content, the system comprising: one or more hardware processors; one or more embedding models executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to…; a similarity evaluator executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to…; an explanation builder executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to…; wherein the explanation builder is further configured to…; a generative intelligence model executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to…; an explanation interleave logic processor executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to…; the explanation interleave processor being further configured to…; a generated segment processor executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to…; a block list model executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to…; a filter executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to”. However, mere recitation that a judicial exception is to be performed using generic computer equipment in their ordinary capacity, i.e. a system for generating an explanation of artificial-intelligence-generated content corresponding to source content, the system comprising: one or more hardware processors; one or more embedding models executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to; a similarity evaluator executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to; an explanation builder executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to; wherein the explanation builder is further configured to; a generative intelligence model executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to; an explanation interleave logic processor executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to; the explanation interleave processor being further configured to; a generated segment processor executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to; a block list model executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to; a filter executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to, cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). With that exception, the analysis at this step is substantially the same as that of claims 1-7, respectively.
Step 2B: These claims do not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis at this step is substantially the same as that of claims 1-7, respectively.
Step 2B: These claims do not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The only substantive difference between claims 8-14 and 1-7 is that claims 8-14 are directed to “A system for generating an explanation of artificial-intelligence-generated content corresponding to source content, the system comprising: one or more hardware processors; one or more embedding models executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to…; a similarity evaluator executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to…; an explanation builder executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to…; wherein the explanation builder is further configured to…; a generative intelligence model executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to…; an explanation interleave logic processor executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to…; the explanation interleave processor being further configured to…; a generated segment processor executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to…; a block list model executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to…; a filter executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to”. However, mere recitation that a judicial exception is to be performed using generic computer equipment in their ordinary capacity, i.e. a system for generating an explanation of artificial-intelligence-generated content corresponding to source content, the system comprising: one or more hardware processors; one or more embedding models executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to; a similarity evaluator executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to; an explanation builder executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to; wherein the explanation builder is further configured to; a generative intelligence model executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to; an explanation interleave logic processor executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to; the explanation interleave processor being further configured to; a generated segment processor executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to; a block list model executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to; a filter executable by the one or more hardware processors and configured to, cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). With that exception, the analysis at this step is substantially the same as that of claims 1-7, respectively.
Claims 15-20
Step 1: These claims are directed to “One or more tangible processor-readable storage media embodied with instructions for executing on one or more processors and circuits of a computing device a process for generating an explanation of artificial-intelligence-generated content corresponding to source content, the process comprising:”; therefore, these claims are directed to the statutory category of an article of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claims 15-20 recite substantially the same abstract ideas as in claims 1-7, respectively.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions recited in these claims are not integrated into a practical application. The only substantive difference between claims 15-20 and claims 1-7 is that claims 15-20 are directed to “One or more tangible processor-readable storage media embodied with instructions for executing on one or more processors and circuits of a computing device a process for generating an explanation of artificial-intelligence-generated content corresponding to source content, the process comprising”. However, mere recitation that a judicial exception is to be performed using generic computer equipment in their ordinary capacity, i.e. one or more tangible processor-readable storage media embodied with instructions for executing on one or more processors and circuits of a computing device a process for generating an explanation of artificial-intelligence-generated content corresponding to source content, the process comprising, cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). With that exception, the analysis at this step is substantially the same as that of claims 1-7, respectively.
Step 2B: These claims do not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The only substantive difference between claims 15-20 and claims 1-7 is that claims 15-20 are directed to “One or more tangible processor-readable storage media embodied with instructions for executing on one or more processors and circuits of a computing device a process for generating an explanation of artificial-intelligence-generated content corresponding to source content, the process comprising”. However, mere recitation that a judicial exception is to be performed using generic computer equipment in their ordinary capacity, i.e. one or more tangible processor-readable storage media embodied with instructions for executing on one or more processors and circuits of a computing device a process for generating an explanation of artificial-intelligence-generated content corresponding to source content, the process comprising, cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). With that exception, the analysis at this step is substantially the same as that of claims 1-7, respectively.
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 (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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dalli et al. (WO 2022129610 A1, filed 12/17/2021), hereinafter Dalli.
Regarding claim 1, Dalli teaches embedding source content segments of the source content to generate input vectors of the source content segments: (Dalli; [0006], Briefly described, embeddings of an input; [0091], Briefly described, an input vector generated from the embedding of source content segments):
embedding generated content segments of the artificial-intelligence-generated content
to generate output vectors of the generated content segments: (Dalli; [0123], Briefly described, embeddings of an output; [0156], Briefly described, output vectors generated from the embedding of the generated content segments):
performing a similarity measurement on the input vectors and the output vectors to
generate a similarity score for each pair of input vectors and output vectors: (Dalli; [0128], Briefly described, the pairs of input and output vectors each being considered for similarity during training):
defining a similarity correspondence between individual content segments of the source
content to the individual generated content segments of the artificial-intelligence-generated content, based on performing the similarity measurement: (Dalli; [0148], Briefly described, a correspondence between outputs and inputs being recorded; [0318], Briefly described, a correspondence between the inputs received to the tasks that are associated with the input features and the outputs for those tasks):
outputting the explanation to a user interface device, wherein the explanation indicates
generated result correspondences between the individual content segments of the source content and the individual generated content segments of the artificial-intelligence-generated content, based on defining the similarity correspondence between the individual content segments of the source content to the individual generated content segments of the artificial-intelligence-generated content: (Dalli; [0101], Briefly described, an explanation or interpretable output consisting of an answer; [0122], Briefly described, the explanation in a 3-tuple dataset with the input and output to indicate the explanation corresponds with the input and output corresponding pairs).
Regarding claim 2, Dalli teaches the method of claim 1 wherein at least one of the source content segments and at least one of the generated content segments includes a sentence, a paragraph, a language phrase, a language term, audio content, image content, or video content: (Dalli; [0128], Briefly described, the input source content segments and output generated content segments including image content; [0204], Briefly described, an audio waveform as input to output a language term, phrase, paragraph, or sentence; [0208], Briefly described, inputs of audio-visual content; [0250], Briefly described, differing modalities to be used as input and output, including audio, image, and video content).
Regarding claim 3, Dalli teaches the method of claim 1 wherein inputting the source content segments and the generated content segments to a generative artificial intelligence model: (Dalli; [0081], Briefly described, the input layer of source content segments consisting of a switch output and a value output for the generated content segments to be input into the generative artificial intelligence model):
querying the generative artificial intelligence model to indicate a relevancy
correspondence between each generated segment of the generated content segments and a corresponding input segment of the source content segments predicted most likely to generate the generated segment, each relevancy correspondence indicating a confidence score: (Dalli; [0091], Figure 604, Briefly described, relevance estimators for the input of content segments corresponding with the output generated content segments [0100], Briefly described, an input query for the input segment to correspond to the generated segment to account for future corresponding input segments; [0300], Briefly described, a confidence score).
Regarding claim 4, Dalli teaches the method of claim 3 wherein the explanation indicates at least one generated result correspondence selected between the individual content segments of the source content and the individual generated content segments of the artificial-intelligence-generated content: (Dalli; [0032], Briefly described, the individual content segments of the source content corresponding with the individual generated content segments through an explainable transducer-transformer, where the explanation is generated to indicate at least one of the correspondences formed in the input layer; [0313], Briefly described, segments formed in a partition structure where features of the input are mapped to their corresponding output, the generated content segments).
Regarding claim 5, Dalli teaches the method of claim 3 wherein selecting, for each corresponding pair of content segments, a similarity correspondence or a relevancy correspondence based on either a corresponding similarity score or a corresponding confidence score satisfying an interleaved explanation logic condition: (Dalli; [0148], Briefly described, a correspondence between outputs and inputs being recorded; [0318], Briefly described, a correspondence between the inputs received to the tasks that are associated with the input features and the outputs for those tasks; [0091], Briefly described, an input vector generated from the embedding of source content segments; [0300], Briefly described, a confidence score; [0078], Briefly described, differing logical conditions from which the similarity and confidence score can satisfy):
adding the similarity correspondence or the relevancy correspondence selected for each
corresponding pair of content segments to the explanation that is output to the user interface device: (Dalli; [0300], Briefly described, a confidence score of the similarity or relevancy correspondence added to the explanation, and suitable dashboard displays as a user interface device to output the explanation).
Regarding claim 6, Dalli teaches the method of claim 1 wherein ranking the generated result correspondences to yield ranked generated result correspondences: (Dalli; [0081], Briefly described, a ranking layer to produce ranked or scored output of the generated result correspondences):
limiting the explanation to include a predefined number of the ranked generated result
correspondences: (Dalli, [0253], Briefly described, a ranked explainable output which is limited to include the predefined number of ranked generated result correspondences, the number determined in the crossover switch controller).
Regarding claim 7, Dali teaches the method of claim 1 wherein providing the block list of content segments to be filtered out of the source content: (Dalli; [0154], Briefly described, overlapping partitions equivalent to a content segment serving as a provided list of content segments to block and filter out):
filtering out segments in the block list before determining the generated result
correspondences between the individual content segments of the source content and the individual generated content segments of the artificial-intelligence-generated content: (Dalli; [0154], Briefly described, the partition equivalent to a content segment being filtered out of a matrix if they are overlapping in the input to get ranked as generated result correspondences based on relevancy).
Regarding claims 8-14, they are apparatus claims that correspond to method claims 1-7. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reason as claims 1-7 above.
Regarding claims 15-20, they are computer-readable storage medium claims that correspond to claims 1-7. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reason as claims 1-7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Doggett et al. (US 20220309345 A1) teaches in paragraph [0042] an embedding of the source content segments to create an embedded vector representation of the input data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROLANDO PATRICK VIRREIRA whose telephone number is (571)270-1570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8:30AM-5PM 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, Jennifer Welch can be reached on (571)272-7212. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of the 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.
/ROLANDO PATRICK VIRREIRA/Examiner, Art Unit 2143
/JENNIFER N WELCH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2143
Prosecution Insights