CTNF 18/532,048 CTNF 96916 DETAILED ACTION Introduction This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on December 7, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. As such, claims 1-20 have been examined. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Drawings The drawings were received on December 7, 2023. These drawings have been accepted and considered by the Examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claims 1, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite: A method comprising: obtaining a plurality of tokens associated with a prompt; determining one or more prompt verification scores by, at least, for an individual prompt verification score of the one or more prompt verification scores: generating a verification prompt comprising: a first subset of one or more tokens of the plurality of tokens, and a second subset of one or more tokens of the plurality of tokens; and obtaining, using a language model (LM), the individual prompt verification score characterizing a likelihood that the second subset of one or more tokens occurs, in the prompt, together with the first subset of one or more tokens; and determining, using the one or more prompt verification scores, whether to provide the prompt to the LM. The claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, “obtaining a plurality of tokens associated with a prompt” in the context of this claim encompasses a person hearing a request or query from another person, “determining one or more prompt verification scores by, at least, for an individual prompt verification score of the one or more prompt verification scores” in the context of this claim encompasses a person deciding if the request or query makes sense, “generating a verification prompt comprising: a first subset of one or more tokens of the plurality of tokens, and a second subset of one or more tokens of the plurality of tokens” in the context of this claim encompasses a person dividing the request or query into two segments, “obtaining, using a language model (LM), the individual prompt verification score characterizing a likelihood that the second subset of one or more tokens occurs, in the prompt, together with the first subset of one or more tokens” in the context of this claim encompasses a person deciding if the two segments make sense together, “determining, using the one or more prompt verification scores, whether to provide the prompt to the LM” in the context of this claim encompasses a person deciding if the request or query is appropriate for inputting to a LLM. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. a language model (LM). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. The dependent claims do not add limitations that would either integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or could help the Claim as a whole to amount to significantly more than the Abstract idea identified for the Independent Claim. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein the prompt comprises at least one of a text, a speech, a video, or a plurality of images. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “wherein the prompt comprises at least one of a text, a speech, a video, or a plurality of images” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the prompt comprises at least one of a text, a speech, a video, or a plurality of images. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite: wherein the second subset of one or more tokens comprises at least one of: a token that follows the first subset of one or more tokens, or a token that occurs inside the first subset of one or more tokens. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “wherein the second subset of one or more tokens comprises at least one of: a token that follows the first subset of one or more tokens, or a token that occurs inside the first subset of one or more tokens” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the segments are divided accordingly. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein the second subset of one or more tokens comprises a next token that follows the first subset of one or more tokens and excludes a token that follows the next token. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “wherein the second subset of one or more tokens comprises a next token that follows the first subset of one or more tokens and excludes a token that follows the next token” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the second subset of one or more tokens comprises a next token that follows the first subset of one or more tokens and excludes a token that follows the next token. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein: the first subset of one or more tokens of a first verification prompt comprises first k tokens of the plurality of tokens, wherein k is an integer number that is less than N–1, wherein N is a number of the plurality of tokens, the second subset of one or more tokens of the first verification prompt comprises k+1th token of the plurality of tokens, the first subset of one or more tokens of a second verification prompt comprises first k+1 tokens of the plurality of tokens, and the second subset of one or more tokens of the second verification prompt comprises k+2th token of the plurality of tokens. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, for each element listed in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the subsets are appropriately arranged according to the criteria listed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite: wherein the determining whether to provide the prompt to the LM comprises: computing, using the one or more prompt verification scores, an evaluation metric for the prompt; and comparing the evaluation metric to a threshold metric. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining whether to provide the prompt to the LM” in the context of this claim encompasses a person deciding if the request or query is appropriate for inputting to a LLM, “computing, using the one or more prompt verification scores, an evaluation metric for the prompt” in the context of this claim encompasses a person deciding a score for the request or query, “comparing the evaluation metric to a threshold metric” in the context of this claim encompasses a person comparing the score to a threshold. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . the LM. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein computing the evaluation metric for the prompt comprises: aggregating the one or more prompt verification scores to obtain the evaluation metric. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “aggregating the one or more prompt verification scores to obtain the evaluation metric” in the context of this claim encompasses a person combining several factors into one score. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein the determining whether to provide the prompt to the LM further comprises: determining that the evaluation metric is above the threshold metric; and providing the prompt to the LM. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining that the evaluation metric is above the threshold metric” in the context of this claim encompasses a person comparing the score to a threshold, “providing the prompt to the LM” in the context of this claim encompasses a person going ahead and feeding a prompt to a model. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . the LM. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein the determining whether to provide the prompt to the LM further comprises: determining that the evaluation metric is below the threshold metric; and wherein the method further comprises: generating a response comprising at least one of: a request to modify the prompt, or a notice that the prompt cannot be processed. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining that the evaluation metric is below the threshold metric” in the context of this claim encompasses a person comparing the score to a threshold, “generating a response comprising at least one of: a request to modify the prompt, or a notice that the prompt cannot be processed” in the context of this claim encompasses a person asking the other person to restate the question. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . the LM. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite: further comprising: determining one or more additional prompt verification scores, wherein determining an individual additional prompt verification score of the one or more additional prompt verification scores comprises: obtaining, using a second LM, the individual prompt verification score characterizing a likelihood that the second subset of one or more tokens occurs, in the prompt, together with the first subset of one or more tokens; and wherein determining whether the prompt is to be provided to the LM comprises: using the one or more additional prompt verification scores. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining one or more additional prompt verification scores, wherein determining an individual additional prompt verification score of the one or more additional prompt verification scores” in the context of this claim encompasses a person deciding if each of the requests or queries makes sense, “obtaining, using a second LM, the individual prompt verification score characterizing a likelihood that the second subset of one or more tokens occurs, in the prompt, together with the first subset of one or more tokens” in the context of this claim encompasses a person deciding if the two segments make sense together, “using the one or more additional prompt verification scores” in the context of this claim encompasses a person acting upon the decision, If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . the LM a second LM. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein the determining whether to provide the prompt to the LM further comprises: computing, using the one or more prompt verification scores, a first evaluation metric for the prompt; and computing, using the one or more additional prompt verification scores, a second evaluation metric for the prompt. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “computing, using the one or more prompt verification scores, a first evaluation metric for the prompt” in the context of this claim encompasses a person converting the score to a metric, “computing, using the one or more additional prompt verification scores, a second evaluation metric for the prompt” in the context of this claim encompasses a person converting the score to a metric. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . the LM. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: further comprising performing at least one of: providing, responsive to the first evaluation metric being above the second evaluation metric, the prompt to the LM, or providing, responsive to the first evaluation metric being below the second evaluation metric, the prompt to the second LM. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “providing, responsive to the first evaluation metric being above the second evaluation metric, the prompt to the LM” in the context of this claim encompasses a person going ahead and feeding a prompt to a model, “providing, responsive to the first evaluation metric being below the second evaluation metric, the prompt to the second LM” in the context of this claim encompasses a person going ahead and feeding a prompt to a model. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . the LM the second LM. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein to determine whether to provide the prompt to the LM or whether to present the output generated using the prompt, the one or more processing units are further to perform at least one of: provide, responsive to determining that the evaluation metric is above the threshold metric, the prompt to the LM, or generate, responsive to determining that the evaluation metric is below the threshold metric, a response comprising at least one of (i) a request to modify the prompt, or (ii) a notice that the prompt cannot be processed. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “provide, responsive to determining that the evaluation metric is above the threshold metric, the prompt to the LM” in the context of this claim encompasses a person going ahead and feeding a prompt to a model, “generate, responsive to determining that the evaluation metric is below the threshold metric, a response comprising at least one of (i) a request to modify the prompt, or (ii) a notice that the prompt cannot be processed” in the context of this claim encompasses a person asking the other person to restate the question. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . the LM. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein to determine whether to provide the prompt to the LM or whether to present the output generated using the prompt, the one or more processing units are further to: compute, using the one or more prompt verification scores, a first evaluation metric for the prompt; and compute, using the one or more additional prompt verification scores, a second evaluation metric for the prompt; and wherein the one or more processing units are further to perform at least one of: provide, responsive to the first evaluation metric being above the second evaluation metric, the prompt to the LM, or provide, responsive to the first evaluation metric being below the second evaluation metric, the prompt to the second LM. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “compute, using the one or more prompt verification scores, a first evaluation metric for the prompt” in the context of this claim encompasses a person converting the score to a metric, “compute, using the one or more additional prompt verification scores, a second evaluation metric for the prompt” in the context of this claim encompasses a person converting the score to a metric, “provide, responsive to the first evaluation metric being above the second evaluation metric, the prompt to the LM” in the context of this claim encompasses a person going ahead and feeding a prompt to a model, “provide, responsive to the first evaluation metric being below the second evaluation metric, the prompt to the second LM” in the context of this claim encompasses a person going ahead and feeding a prompt to a model. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . the LM the second LM. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: an in-vehicle infotainment system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing one or more simulation operations; a system for performing one or more digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing one or more deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system for generating or presenting at least one of virtual reality content, mixed reality content, or augmented reality content; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing one or more conversational AI operations; a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs);a system implementing one or more language models; a system for performing one or more generative AI operations; a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: an in-vehicle infotainment system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing one or more simulation operations; a system for performing one or more digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing one or more deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system for generating or presenting at least one of virtual reality content, mixed reality content, or augmented reality content; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing one or more conversational AI operations; a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs); a system implementing one or more language models; a system for performing one or more generative AI operations; a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the system comprises these items listed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . large language models (LLMs) a robot cloud computing resources a data center virtual machines (VMs). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zha et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20240202458 A1), hereinafter Zha, in view of Tu et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20240330603 A1), hereinafter Tu, in view of Nurminen et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20070016421 A1), hereinafter Nurminen . Regarding claims 1, 13 and 20 , Zha teaches a method, a system, and one or more processors (Zha in [0078] teaches using a method, using a system and using a processor) comprising: determining one or more prompt verification scores by, at least, for an individual prompt verification score of the one or more prompt verification scores (Zha in [0044] teaches using similarity scores and performance criteria of candidate prompts to evaluate and rank the candidate prompts): and and determining, using the one or more prompt verification scores, whether to provide the prompt to the LM [ claims 13 and 20 only : or whether to present an output generated using the prompt] (Zha in [0044] teaches using similarity scores and performance criteria of candidate prompts to evaluate and rank the candidate prompts, and teaches selecting some prompts over other prompts, and teaches discarding some prompts based on the performance desired, and in [0027] teaches discovering prompts for NLP ML models ). Zha does not teach, however Tu teaches obtaining a plurality of tokens associated with a prompt (Tu in [0055-0056] teaches determining a set of tokens for a prompt); generating a verification prompt comprising: a first subset of one or more tokens of the plurality of tokens, and a second subset of one or more tokens of the plurality of tokens (Tu in [0055-0056] teaches determining a first set of tokens for a prompt, and determining a second set of tokens for a prompt, and determining a subset of the first set of tokens, and determining a subset of the second set of tokens). Tu is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analyzing prompts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zha further in view of Tu to allow for determining a first and second set of tokens for a prompt. Motivation to do so would allow for improved accuracy over other prompt-tuning methods (Tu [0018]). Zha, as modified above, teaches the language model (LM), the prompt, the prompt verification score, the first subset of one or more tokens, and the second subset of one or more tokens. Zha, as modified above, does not teach, however Nurminen teaches obtaining, [using a language model (LM)], the individual [prompt verification score] characterizing a likelihood that the [second subset of one or more tokens] occurs, in [the prompt], together with the [first subset of one or more tokens] (Nurminen in [0033] teaches determining a probability of occurrence of a second segment with a given first segment). Nurminen is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of determining probabilities of occurrences. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zha, as modified above, further in view of Nurminen to allow for determining a probability of occurrence of a second segment with a given first segment. Motivation to do so would allow for providing an improved method for correcting a pronunciation of a speech object (Nurminen [0017]). Regarding claim 2 , Zha, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1. Zha further teaches wherein the prompt comprises at least one of a text, a speech, a video, or a plurality of images (Zha in [0020] teaches a prompt may be sentence (s), phrase(s), or other series of words, symbols or other portions text of natural language). Regarding claims 6 and 15 , Zha, as modified above, teaches the method and system of claims 1 and 13. Zha, as modified above, teaches the determining whether to provide the prompt to the LM. Zha further teaches wherein the determining whether to provide the prompt to the LM [ claim 15 only: or whether to present the output generated using the prompt] comprises: computing, using the one or more prompt verification scores, an evaluation metric for the prompt (Zha in [0044] teaches using similarity scores and performance criteria of candidate prompts to evaluate and rank the candidate prompts, and teaches selecting some prompts over other prompts, and teaches discarding some prompts based on the performance desired, and in [0027] teaches discovering prompts for NLP ML models ); and comparing the evaluation metric to a threshold metric (Zha in [0044] teaches scores may be compared with a minimum score threshold (e.g., a candidate must have a similarity score greater than 0.7 (out of a range of 0 to 1))). Regarding claim 8 , Zha, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 6. Zha, as modified above, teaches the determining whether to provide the prompt to the LM. Zha further teaches wherein the determining whether to provide the prompt to the LM further comprises: determining that the evaluation metric is above the threshold metric (Zha in [0044] teaches using similarity scores and performance criteria of candidate prompts to evaluate and rank the candidate prompts, and teaches selecting some prompts over other prompts, and teaches discarding some prompts based on the performance desired, and teaches scores may be compared with a minimum score threshold (e.g., a candidate must have a similarity score greater than 0.7 (out of a range of 0 to 1))); and providing the prompt to the LM (Zha in [0044] teaches using similarity scores and performance criteria of candidate prompts to evaluate and rank the candidate prompts, and teaches selecting some prompts over other prompts, and teaches discarding some prompts based on the performance desired, and in [0027] teaches discovering prompts for NLP ML models ). Regarding claims 10 and 17 , Zha, as modified above, teaches the method and system of claims 1 and 13. Zha, as modified above, teaches the determining whether to provide the prompt to the LM, the first subset of one or more tokens, and the second subset of one or more tokens. Zha further teaches further comprising: determining one or more additional prompt verification scores (Zha in [0044] teaches using similarity scores and performance criteria of candidate prompts to evaluate and rank the candidate prompts), and wherein determining whether the prompt is to be provided to the LM [ claim 17 only: or whether to present the output generated using the prompt , the one or more processing units are to: ] comprises: using the one or more additional prompt verification scores (Zha in [0044] teaches using similarity scores and performance criteria of candidate prompts to evaluate and rank the candidate prompts, and teaches selecting some prompts over other prompts, and teaches discarding some prompts based on the performance desired, and in [0027] teaches discovering prompts for NLP ML models ). Zha, as modified above, does not teach, however Tu teaches using a second LM (Tu in [0057] teaches using a neural network-based language model). Tu is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analyzing prompts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zha, as modified above, further in view of Tu to allow for using a neural network-based language model. Motivation to do so would allow for improved accuracy over other prompt-tuning methods (Tu [0018]). Zha, as modified above, teaches the determining an individual additional prompt verification score of the one or more additional prompt verification scores, and the second LM. Zha, as modified above, does not teach, however Nurminen teaches wherein determining an individual additional prompt verification score of the one or more additional prompt verification scores comprises: obtaining, using [a second LM], the [individual prompt verification score] characterizing a likelihood that the [second subset of one or more tokens] occurs, in the prompt, together with the [first subset of one or more tokens] (Nurminen in [0033] teaches determining a probability of occurrence of a second segment with a given first segment); Nurminen is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of determining probabilities of occurrences. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zha, as modified above, further in view of Nurminen to allow for determining a probability of occurrence of a second segment with a given first segment. Motivation to do so would allow for providing an improved method for correcting a pronunciation of a speech object (Nurminen [0017]). Regarding claim 11 , Zha, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 10. Zha, as modified above, teaches the determining whether to provide the prompt to the LM, the prompt verification scores, and the additional prompt verification scores. Zha further teaches wherein the determining whether to provide the prompt to the LM further comprises: computing, using the one or more prompt verification scores, a first evaluation metric for the prompt (Zha in [0044] teaches using similarity scores and performance criteria of candidate prompts to evaluate and rank the candidate prompts, and teaches selecting some prompts over other prompts, and teaches discarding some prompts based on the performance desired); and computing, using the one or more additional prompt verification scores, a second evaluation metric for the prompt (Zha in [0044] teaches using similarity scores and performance criteria of candidate prompts to evaluate and rank the candidate prompts, and teaches selecting some prompts over other prompts, and teaches discarding some prompts based on the performance desired). Regarding claim 19 , Zha, as modified above, teaches the system of claim 13. Zha further teaches wherein the system is comprised in at least one of : an in-vehicle infotainment system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing one or more simulation operations; a system for performing one or more digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing one or more deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system for generating or presenting at least one of virtual reality content, mixed reality content, or augmented reality content; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing one or more conversational AI operations; a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs); a system implementing one or more language models (Zha in [0018] teaches using natural language processing (NLP) machine learning (ML) models); a system for performing one or more generative AI operations (Zha in [0031] teaches using various different ML model architectures (e.g., Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT)-based ML models), and frameworks (e.g., PyTorch, TensorFlow, etc.)); a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs) (Zha in [0031] teaches using a virtual compute service); a system implemented at least partially in a data center (Zha in [0031] teaches using data centers); or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources (Zha in [0031] teaches using various types of cloud-based storage) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3, 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zha, in view of Tu, in view of Nurminen, in view of Yu et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20190228138 A1), hereinafter Yu . Regarding claims 3 and 14 , Zha, as modified above, teaches the method and system of claims 1 and 13. Zha, as modified above, teaches the first subset of one or more tokens, and the second subset of one or more tokens. Zha, as modified above, does not teach, however Yu teaches wherein the second subset of one or more tokens comprises at least one of : a token that follows the first subset of one or more tokens, or a token that occurs inside the first subset of one or more tokens (Yu in [0051] teaches selecting a first set of words from a sentence, selecting a second set of words from a sentence, and the second set of words follows the first set of words while simultaneously being within the sentence). Yu is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of selecting subsets of words. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zha, as modified above, further in view of Yu to allow for selecting a first set of words from a sentence, selecting a second set of words from a sentence, and the second set of words follows the first set of words while simultaneously being within the sentence. Motivation to do so would allow for a certification method and an electronic device thereof, such that the security of certification is enhanced (Yu [0005]). Regarding claim 4 , Zha, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1. Zha, as modified above, teaches the first subset of one or more tokens, and the second subset of one or more tokens. Zha, as modified above, does not teach, however Yu teaches wherein the second subset of one or more tokens comprises a next token that follows the first subset of one or more tokens and excludes a token that follows the next token (Yu in [0051] teaches selecting a first set of words from a sentence, selecting a second set of words from a sentence, and the second set of words follows the first set of words while simultaneously excluding other following words). Yu is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of selecting subsets of words. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zha, as modified above, further in view of Yu to allow for selecting a first set of words from a sentence, selecting a second set of words from a sentence, and the second set of words follows the first set of words. Motivation to do so would allow for a certification method and an electronic device thereof, such that the security of certification is enhanced (Yu [0005]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zha, in view of Tu, in view of Nurminen, in view of Behzadi et al. (US Patent No. 8131751 B1), hereinafter Behzadi . Regarding claim 5 , Zha, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1. Zha, as modified above, does not teach, however Tu teaches a first verification prompt (Tu in [0055-0056] teaches determining a first set of tokens for a prompt , and determining a second set of tokens for a prompt, and determining a subset of the first set of tokens, and determining a subset of the second set of tokens) a second verification prompt (Tu in [0055-0056] teaches determining a first set of tokens for a prompt , and determining a second set of tokens for a prompt, and determining a subset of the first set of tokens, and determining a subset of the second set of tokens [this can be repeated for a second prompt]) the first subset of one or more tokens of a first verification prompt (Tu in [0055-0056] teaches determining a first set of tokens for a prompt, and determining a second set of tokens for a prompt, and determining a subset of the first set of tokens , and determining a subset of the second set of tokens) the second subset of one or more tokens of the first verification prompt (Tu in [0055-0056] teaches determining a first set of tokens for a prompt, and determining a second set of tokens for a prompt, and determining a subset of the first set of tokens, and determining a subset of the second set of tokens ) the first subset of one or more tokens of a second verification prompt (Tu in [0055-0056] teaches determining a first set of tokens for a prompt, and determining a second set of tokens for a prompt, and determining a subset of the first set of tokens , and determining a subset of the second set of tokens [this can be repeated for a second prompt]) the second subset of one or more tokens of the second verification prompt (Tu in [0055-0056] teaches determining a first set of tokens for a prompt, and determining a second set of tokens for a prompt, and determining a subset of the first set of tokens, and determining a subset of the second set of tokens [this can be repeated for a second prompt]) Tu is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analyzing prompts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zha, as modified above, further in view of Tu to allow for determining a first and second set of tokens for a prompt. Motivation to do so would allow for improved accuracy over other prompt-tuning methods (Tu [0018]). Zha, as modified above, teaches the first subset of one or more tokens, and the second subset of one or more tokens, the first verification prompt, and the second verification prompt. Zha, as modified above, does not teach, however Behzadi teaches wherein: the [first subset of one or more tokens of a first verification prompt] comprises first k tokens of the plurality of tokens, wherein k is an integer number that is less than N–1, wherein N is a number of the plurality of tokens (Behzadi in [col 3 ln 25-42] teaches A shingle is a contiguous subsequence of tokens. A shingle or a subsequence of tokens can be of different sizes. In FIG. 1, a shingle consists of k adjoining tokens extracted from the sequence 1010 of n tokens {t1, t2, t3, t4, tn-2, tn-1, tn}. In some implementations, the shingle generating process used in FIG. 1 can be conceived as a shifting window. The window begins with framing the first token to the k-th token in the sequence 1010, and then shifts one position ahead each time to generate a new shingle. Applying this shingling pattern, the shingles 1020 of k tokens are generated, where the first shingle consists of tokens t1 to tk, the second shingle consists of tokens t2 to tk+1, the third shingle consists of tokens from t3 to tk+2, . . . and the last shingle consists of tokens from tn-k+1 to tn. In some implementations, the total number of the shingles of k tokens extracted from the sequence of n tokens is (n-k+1). In other implementations, the total number of the shingles of k tokens extracted from the sequence of n tokens is less than (n-k+1)), the [second subset of one or more tokens of the first verification prompt] comprises k+1th token of the plurality of tokens (Behzadi in [col 3 ln 25-42] teaches A shingle is a contiguous subsequence of tokens. A shingle or a subsequence of tokens can be of different sizes. In FIG. 1, a shingle consists of k adjoining tokens extracted from the sequence 1010 of n tokens {t1, t2, t3, t4, tn-2, tn-1, tn}. In some implementations, the shingle generating process used in FIG. 1 can be conceived as a shifting window. The window begins with framing the first token to the k-th token in the sequence 1010, and then shifts one position ahead each time to generate a new shingle. Applying this shingling pattern, the shingles 1020 of k tokens are generated, where the first shingle consists of tokens t1 to tk, the second shingle consists of tokens t2 to tk+1 , the third shingle consists of tokens from t3 to tk+2, . . . and the last shingle consists of tokens from tn-k+1 to tn. In some implementations, the total number of the shingles of k tokens extracted from the sequence of n tokens is (n-k+1). In other implementations, the total number of the shingles of k tokens extracted from the sequence of n tokens is less than (n-k+1)), the [first subset of one or more tokens of a second verification prompt] comprises first k+1 tokens of the plurality of tokens (Behzadi in [col 3 ln 25-42] teaches A shingle is a contiguous subsequence of tokens. A shingle or a subsequence of tokens can be of different sizes. In FIG. 1, a shingle consists of k adjoining tokens extracted from the sequence 1010 of n tokens {t1, t2, t3, t4, tn-2, tn-1, tn}. In some implementations, the shingle generating process used in FIG. 1 can be conceived as a shifting window. The window begins with framing the first token to the k-th token in the sequence 1010, and then shifts one position ahead each time to generate a new shingle. Applying this shingling pattern, the shingles 1020 of k tokens are generated, where the first shingle consists of tokens t1 to tk, the second shingle consists of tokens t2 to tk+1 , the third shingle consists of tokens from t3 to tk+2, . . . and the last shingle consists of tokens from tn-k+1 to tn. In some implementations, the total number of the shingles of k tokens extracted from the sequence of n tokens is (n-k+1). In other implementations, the total number of the shingles of k tokens extracted from the sequence of n tokens is less than (n-k+1)), and the [second subset of one or more tokens of the second verification prompt] comprises k+2th token of the plurality of tokens (Behzadi in [col 3 ln 25-42] teaches A shingle is a contiguous subsequence of tokens. A shingle or a subsequence of tokens can be of different sizes. In FIG. 1, a shingle consists of k adjoining tokens extracted from the sequence 1010 of n tokens {t1, t2, t3, t4, tn-2, tn-1, tn}. In some implementations, the shingle generating process used in FIG. 1 can be conceived as a shifting window. The window begins with framing the first token to the k-th token in the sequence 1010, and then shifts one position ahead each time to generate a new shingle. Applying this shingling pattern, the shingles 1020 of k tokens are generated, where the first shingle consists of tokens t1 to tk, the second shingle consists of tokens t2 to tk+1, the third shingle consists of tokens from t3 to tk+2 , . . . and the last shingle consists of tokens from tn-k+1 to tn. In some implementations, the total number of the shingles of k tokens extracted from the sequence of n tokens is (n-k+1). In other implementations, the total number of the shingles of k tokens extracted from the sequence of n tokens is less than (n-k+1)). Behzadi is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of generating subsequences. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zha, as modified above, further in view of Behzadi to allow for determining various subsequences of tokens. Motivation to do so would allow for simultaneously selecting the same subsequences across different sequences of tokens while guaranteeing full coverage by the subsequences selected (Behzadi [col 1 ln 14-25]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zha, in view of Tu, in view of Nurminen, in view of Chang et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20160026961 A1), hereinafter Chang . Regarding claim 7 , Zha, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 6. Zha, as modified above, teaches computing the evaluation metric for the prompt, and the one or more prompt verification scores. Zha, as modified above, does not teach, however Chang teaches wherein computing the evaluation metric for the prompt comprises: aggregating the [one or more prompt verification scores] to obtain the evaluation metric (Chang in [0034] teaches a profile completeness metric calculated from professional brand data may be calculated by aggregating a set of scores representing completion of different parts of the sales entity's profile, such as listed job positions, number of connections, profile picture, education, skills, industry, location, description of current position, and recent updates to the current position. Chang is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analyzing prompts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zha, as modified above, further in view of Chang to allow for aggregating a set of scores. Motivation to do so would allow for a manager to assign different roles, territories, and/or accounts to different sales entities based on the scores of the sales entities and/or the positions of the sales entities in the ranking (Chang [0044]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zha, in view of Tu, in view of Nurminen, in view of Navarro et al. (US Patent No. 11853257 B1), hereinafter Navarro . Regarding claim 9 , Zha, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 6. Zha, as modified above, teaches the determining whether to provide the prompt to the LM. Zha further teaches wherein the determining whether to provide the prompt to the LM further comprises: determining that the evaluation metric is below the threshold metric (Zha in [0044] teaches using similarity scores and performance criteria of candidate prompts to evaluate and rank the candidate prompts, and teaches selecting some prompts over other prompts, and teaches discarding some prompts based on the performance desired, and teaches scores may be compared with a minimum score threshold (e.g., a candidate must have a similarity score greater than 0.7 (out of a range of 0 to 1))). Zha, as modified above, does not teach, however Navarro teaches wherein the method further comprises: generating a response comprising at least one of : a request to modify the prompt, or a notice that the prompt cannot be processed (Navarro in [col 5 ln 22-55] teaches the back end may determine whether any inputs are invalid and may notify the front end of the specific invalid inputs , allowing the front end to prompt users to modify the invalid inputs without delaying the processing and evaluation of other inputs). Navarro is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of identifying invalid inputs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zha, as modified above, further in view of Navarro to allow notify a user of the specific invalid inputs. Motivation to do so would allow for real-time front-end evaluation of inputs and other data related to a content campaign which may allow for a front-end validation service to verify that any inputs or other data that may be validated on the front end are validated on the front end before sending the inputs or other data to the back end (Navarro [col 4 ln 3-12]). Regarding claim 16 , Zha, as modified above, teaches the system of claim 15. Zha, as modified above, teaches the determining whether to provide the prompt to the LM or whether to present the output generated using the prompt, the one or more processing units. Zha further teaches wherein to determine whether to provide the prompt to the LM or whether to present the output generated using the prompt, the one or more processing units are further to perform at least one of : provide, responsive to determining that the evaluation metric is above the threshold metric, the prompt to the LM(Zha in [0044] teaches using similarity scores and performance criteria of candidate prompts to evaluate and rank the candidate prompts, and teaches selecting some prompts over other prompts, and teaches discarding some prompts based on the performance desired, and teaches scores may be compared with a minimum score threshold (e.g., a candidate must have a similarity score greater than 0.7 (out of a range of 0 to 1))), or generate, responsive to determining that the evaluation metric is below the threshold metric, a response (Zha in [0044] teaches using similarity scores and performance criteria of candidate prompts to evaluate and rank the candidate prompts, and teaches selecting some prompts over other prompts, and teaches discarding some prompts based on the performance desired, and teaches scores may be compared with a minimum score threshold (e.g., a candidate must have a similarity score greater than 0.7 (out of a range of 0 to 1))). Zha, as modified above, does not teach, however Navarro teaches comprising at least one of (i) a request to modify the prompt, or (ii) a notice that the prompt cannot be processed (Navarro in [col 5 ln 22-55] teaches the back end may determine whether any inputs are invalid and may notify the front end of the specific invalid inputs , allowing the front end to prompt users to modify the invalid inputs without delaying the processing and evaluation of other inputs). Navarro is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of identifying invalid inputs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zha, as modified above, further in view of Navarro to allow notify a user of the specific invalid inputs. Motivation to do so would allow for real-time front-end evaluation of inputs and other data related to a content campaign which may allow for a front-end validation service to verify that any inputs or other data that may be validated on the front end are validated on the front end before sending the inputs or other data to the back end (Navarro [col 4 ln 3-12]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zha, in view of Tu, in view of Nurminen, in view of Beinat et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20260140977 A1), hereinafter Beinat . Regarding claim 12 , Zha, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 11. Zha, as modified above, teaches the prompt, the LM, the second LM, the first evaluation metric, and the second evaluation metric. Zha, as modified above, does not teach, however Beinat teaches further comprising performing at least one of : providing, responsive to the first evaluation metric being above the second evaluation metric, the prompt to the LM, or providing, responsive to the first evaluation metric being below the second evaluation metric, the prompt to the second LM (Beinat in [0096] teaches when the confidence score is below a predefined threshold, inputting the data set into the second LLM). Beinat is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of determining which LLM to use. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zha, as modified above, further in view of Beinat to allow for when the confidence score is below a predefined threshold, inputting the data set into the second LLM. Motivation to do so would allow for efficiently controlling routing of requests to model endpoint infrastructure including a plurality of model endpoints configured for different functions (Beinat [0035]). Regarding claim 18 , Zha, as modified above, teaches the system of claim 17. Zha, as modified above, teaches the determining whether to provide the prompt to the LM or whether to present the output generated using the prompt, the prompt verification scores, and the additional prompt verification scores. Zha further teaches wherein to determine whether to provide the prompt to the LM or whether to present the output generated using the prompt, the one or more processing units are further to: compute, using the one or more prompt verification scores, a first evaluation metric for the prompt (Zha in [0044] teaches using similarity scores and performance criteria of candidate prompts to evaluate and rank the candidate prompts, and teaches selecting some prompts over other prompts, and teaches discarding some prompts based on the performance desired); and compute, using the one or more additional prompt verification scores, a second evaluation metric for the prompt (Zha in [0044] teaches using similarity scores and performance criteria of candidate prompts to evaluate and rank the candidate prompts, and teaches selecting some prompts over other prompts, and teaches discarding some prompts based on the performance desired). Zha, as modified above, teaches the one or more processing units, the prompt, the LM, the second LM, the first evaluation metric, and the second evaluation metric. Zha, as modified above, does not teach, however Beinat teaches wherein the one or more processing units are further to perform at least one of : provide, responsive to the first evaluation metric being above the second evaluation metric, the prompt to the LM, or provide, responsive to the first evaluation metric being below the second evaluation metric, the prompt to the second LM (Beinat in [0096] teaches when the confidence score is below a predefined threshold, inputting the data set into the second LLM). Beinat is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of determining which LLM to use. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zha, as modified above, further in view of Beinat to allow for when the confidence score is below a predefined threshold, inputting the data set into the second LLM. Motivation to do so would allow for efficiently controlling routing of requests to model endpoint infrastructure including a plurality of model endpoints configured for different functions (Beinat [0035]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J. MUELLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1875. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm (Eastern). 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, Daniel C. Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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. PAUL MUELLER Examiner Art Unit 2657 /PAUL J. MUELLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 2 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 3 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 4 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 5 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 6 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 7 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 8 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 9 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 10 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 11 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 12 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 13 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 14 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 15 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 16 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 17 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 18 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 19 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 20 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 21 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 22 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 23 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 24 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 25 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 26 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 27 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 28 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 29 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 30 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 31 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 32 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 33 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 34 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 35 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 36 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 37 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 38 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 39 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 40 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 41 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 42 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 43 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 44 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/532,048 Page 45 Art Unit: 2657
Prosecution Insights