DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 02/17/2026.
Claim 20 has been cancelled. Claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1 – 19, and 21 are currently pending.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell et al (U.S. 2024/0296295 A1) in view of Shrestha et al (U.S. 2024/0330290 A1), Gupta et al (U.S. 12,333,246 B1).
[Symbol font/0xA8]As per claims 1, 9, 17,
Russell discloses a method, system comprising:
- “receiving a question for a document” See Fig. 4A, step 402, Para. 0065 of Russell wherein user input an interrogation request about a document, [“At operation 402, an interrogation request, about a source document having content, is received. The interrogation request is a question or request that can be answered from the content of the source document”].
- “generating, by an answer generator, an answer corresponding to the question” See Fig. 2 and Fig. 4A - B, step 408, Para. 0016, 0045 – 0047, 0067 of Russell wherein output (including texts and quotes) are generated by the “Large Language Model (LLM) 108”.
- “receiving an attribution request associated with a portion of the answer, wherein the portion of the answer includes a subset of text from the answer” See Fig. 2, Para. 0016, 0045 – 0047, 0068 – 0072 of Russell wherein the verification request (Quote query 220) is sent to “Production Application 110”.
Russell does not clearly disclose “generating, by an attribution generator, a plurality of document embeddings using text from the document; generating, by the attribution generator, an answer embedding comprising the portion of the answer; determining, by the attribution generator, a similarity between a document embedding of the plurality of document embeddings and the answer embedding”, and “selecting, by the attribution generator, one or more attributions for the portion of the answer based on the similarity between the document embedding and the answer embedding”.
However, Shrestha, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a method, system for processing embedding (See abstract of Shrestha). In particular, Shrestha teaches:
*“generating, by an attribution generator, a plurality of document embeddings using text from the document”: See Para. 0035, 0060 – 0061, 0070 of Shrestha wherein plurality of documents are embedded and grouped into cluster with “text from the document” considered as a “central vector”, [ “Each document stored by the information retrieval system may be processed to generate document embedding vectors”, “document embedding vectors 315 of FIG. 3 may be grouped into clusters. These clusters may be defined in any desired manner: for example, all document embedding vectors 315 of FIG. 3 within some maximum distance from a “central” vector may be grouped into a cluster (with other clusters being similarly defined)”.
* “generating, by the attribution generator, an answer embedding” See Fig. 4, Query 405, Para. 0068 of Shrestha wherein the “answer embedding” corresponds to the “query embedding vector 410”, [“Query 405 may be processed by neural language model 310 to produce query embedding vector 410”].
* “determining, by the attribution generator, a similarity between a document embedding of the plurality of document embeddings and the answer embedding”: See Para. 0069, 0071 of Shrestha wherein “query embedding vector 410 may similarly be compared with document embedding vectors”, “the list of document embedding vectors 420 belonging to that cluster may be determined…. determine whether the document embedding vectors 315 of FIG. 3 to compare with query embedding vector… may perform similarity search 430 by comparing query embedding vector 410 with document embedding vectors 315 of FIG. 3. Similarity search 430 may be, for example, calculating distance as described with reference to FIG. 3 above. Or, similarity search 430 may involve either matrix multiplication or dot product computations involving query embedding vector 410 and document embedding vectors”.
*“selecting, by the attribution generator, one or more attributions for the portion of the answer based on a similarity between the document-answer pairs”: See Fig. 4, Result 465, Para. 0075 of Shrestha wherein results are ranked and provide to the user, [“results 435 and 445 may be combined and ranked, as shown at block 465. By combining and ranking results 435 and 445, the most pertinent documents 305 of FIG. 3 may be identified from both results 435 and 445 for document retrieval”].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to apply the teaching of Shrestha into the invention of Russell since both inventions were available and the combination would provide the user with more desirable results and therefore, reduce the time searching for information.
- “and presenting the one or more attributions for display” See Fig. 3, Para. 0060 – 0063 of Russell wherein attribute verification indicator, and source identifier of the quotes are displayed, [“In the example depicted, both of the quotes are verified. As a result, a verification indicator 318 is provided in the responsive results”, “The verification indicator 318 conveys to the user that the quotes within the responsive results have been verified and are properly attributable to the source document 322”, “Each of the quotes 316 also include a source identifier 320 that has been operationalized as a link to the corresponding portion of the document.”]; and further in combine with Shrestha wherein related documents are provided.
[Symbol font/0xA8]As per claims 2, 10,
- “wherein generating, by an answer generator (LLM), an answer corresponding to the question, further comprises: providing, to the answer generator, a prompt including the question, wherein the prompt requests inline source citations from the answer generator, and wherein the inline source citations are parsed by the attribution generator for error handling” See Fig. 2, Para0026 – 0034 of Russell (prompts and inline citation); Para. 0049, 0051 (parsed and error handling).
[Symbol font/0xA8]As per claims 3, 11, 21,
- “extracting a first one or more fact statements from the portion of the answer; extracting a second one or more fact statements from sources associated with the answer; and determining the one or more attributions by matching the first one or more fact statements to one or more fact statements from the second one or more fact statements” See Fig. 3 – 4, Para. 0057, 0063, 0091 of Russell wherein quotes are extract to verify with sources [“upon selection of one of the source indicators 320, the source document 322 is navigated (e.g., scrolled) to the portion of the source document 322 where the quote is presented. In some examples, other interactions with the source identifier causes the location of the quote (e.g., page and/or line number) of the quote 316 in the source document 322. For example, hovering over the source indicator 320 may cause a popup interface to display the location of the corresponding quote”, “extracting a first text string, from the first asserted quote, and a second text string from the second asserted quote; executing a string-matching query against the content of the source document to determine that the first text string is not present in the content of the source document and that the second text string is present in the content of the source document”].
[Symbol font/0xA8]As per claims 4, 12,
- “retrieving, by the attribution generator, one or more portions of sources based on the portion of the answer; determining, by the attribution generator, a relevance score for each of the one or more portions of the sources; and generating, by the attribution generator, the one or more attributions based on the one or more portions of the sources and their corresponding relevance scores” See Para. 0051 of Russell wherein a “percentage of the characters match” is determined when matching the asserted quote with the content source, [“the asserted quote in the LLM output may still be considered a match to the document when all but a set number or low percentage of the characters match content in the source document 222. For instance, a 95% match may still be considered a match, or a match may still be found when 5 or less characters in the extracted text string do not match”].
[Symbol font/0xA8]As per claims 5, 13,
- “wherein a relevance score for a second attribution is within a relative threshold difference from a relevance score for a first attribution” See Para. 0051, 0054 of Russell
[Symbol font/0xA8]As per claims 6, 14,
- “wherein the portion of the answer is limited to being associated with a maximum number of attributions” See Fig. 3 of Russell wherein the asserted quote is depending on the answer.
[Symbol font/0xA8]As per claims 7, 15,
- “wherein each of the one or more attributions includes one or more pointers from the portion of the answer to corresponding content in a source” See Para. 0057, 0063 of Russell wherein a link is added to the source indicator, “Each of the quotes 316 also include a source identifier 320 that has been operationalized as a link to the corresponding portion of the document …upon selection of one of the source indicators 320, the source document 322 is navigated (e.g., scrolled) to the portion of the source document 322 where the quote is presented. In some examples, other interactions with the source identifier causes the location of the quote (e.g., page and/or line number) of the quote 316 in the source document 322. For example, hovering over the source indicator 320 may cause a popup interface to display the location of the corresponding quote”.
[Symbol font/0xA8]As per claims 8, 16,
- “receiving a second attribution request associated with a second portion of the answer different from the portion of the answer; generating, by the attribution generator, second one or more attributions for the second portion of the answer based on sources associated with the answer; and presenting the second one or more attributions for display” See Fig. 3 of Russell wherein different source indicator can be presented, wherein each source indicator corresponding to a portion of the answer.
[Symbol font/0xA8]As per claim 18,
- “wherein the processing device performs further operations comprising: receiving a selection of a first attribution; and causing a corresponding portion of the document to be presented for display” See Para. 0057, 0063 of Russell wherein a link is added to the source indicator, “Each of the quotes 316 also include a source identifier 320 that has been operationalized as a link to the corresponding portion of the document …upon selection of one of the source indicators 320, the source document 322 is navigated (e.g., scrolled) to the portion of the source document 322 where the quote is presented. In some examples, other interactions with the source identifier causes the location of the quote (e.g., page and/or line number) of the quote 316 in the source document 322. For example, hovering over the source indicator 320 may cause a popup interface to display the location of the corresponding quote”.
[Symbol font/0xA8]As per claim 19,
- “wherein the operation of generating, by an answer generator, an answer corresponding to the question, further comprises: generating, by a prompt generator, a prompt based on the document and the question, the prompt instructing a document question answering model to answer the question and provide one or more sources for the answer; and generating, by the document question answering model, the answer corresponding to the question, wherein the answer includes the one or more sources for the answer” See Fig. 2, Para 0011 - 0012(plurality of documents), 0026 – 0034 of Russell (prompts and inline citation, “the prompt may request the responses primarily in the form of verbatim quotes from the source document. In some examples, the prompt can also be configured to generate citations or source indicators for the quotes that are provided”).
[Symbol font/0xA8]As per claim 20,
- “wherein the document question answering model is a large language model” See Fig. 2, element 108, Para. 0018 of Russell wherein “the AV application 112 provides functionality for generating a prompt based on user input, providing the prompt as input to the LLM 108, and postprocessing the responsive output from the LLM 108 to verify that attributions in the output are actually within the source document”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 - 20 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Russell and Shrestha.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAM LINH T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 - 3:00 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, Apu Mofiz can be reached on 571-272-4080. 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.
/CAM LINH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161