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 action is in response to the application and claims filed 02/22/2024. Claims 1-17 are pending and have been examined. Claimed 1-17 are rejected.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. The present application claims priority to Indian Patent application No. IN202341012707 filed on 02/24/2023.
However, as detailed below, the claimed features of dependent claims 3-5 and 11-13 are not supported by the disclosure of the foreign application, Indian Patent application No. IN202341012707 (hereinafter “the ‘707 foreign application”). In particular, the ‘707 foreign application fails to provide adequate support of enablement in the manner by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Dependent claims 3 and 11 recite, “wherein the moderation module comprises a plurality of moderation models, each moderation model configured to identify at least one restricted attribute in the input”.
The as-filed specification of the ‘707 foreign application fails to provide adequate support or enablement for at least the above-noted elements of the dependent claims 3 and 11.
For example, the original specification of the ‘707 foreign application is silent regarding any “moderation modules compris[ing] … moderation models” where each “moderation model [is] configured to identify at least one restricted attribute in the input” as recited in claim 3 and 11. In fact, the original specification of the ‘707 foreign application does not mention any “moderation model” or moderation models or any “restricted attribute” as recited in claims 3 and 11.
Dependent claims 4 and 12 recite, “wherein the at least one moderation output comprises identification of the at least one restricted attribute”.
The as-filed specification of the ‘707 foreign application fails to provide adequate support or enablement for at least the above-noted elements of the dependent claims 4 and 12.
The original specification of the ‘707 foreign application is silent regarding any “moderation output compris[ing] identification of the at least one restricted attribute” as recited in claims 4 and 12. In fact, the original specification of the ‘707 foreign application does not mention any moderation output including or comprising identification of any restricted attribute, let alone the “moderation output [that] comprises identification of the at least one restricted attribute” as recited in claims 4 and 12.
Dependent claims 5 and 13 recite, “moderation module is configured to transform the input to text”.
The as-filed specification of the ‘707 foreign application fails to provide adequate support or enablement for at least the above-noted elements of the dependent claims 5 and 13.
The original specification of the ‘707 foreign application is silent regarding any “moderation module configured to … transform the input to text” as recited in claims 5 and 13. In fact, the original specification of the ‘707 foreign application does not mention any transforming or transformation of input to text, much less any module, unit or program to “transform the input to text” as recited in claims 5 and 13.
Thus, as-filed specification of the ‘707 foreign application fails to provide adequate support or enablement for at least the above-noted elements of claims 3-5 and 11-13. However, the disclosure of the instant application appears to provide adequate support and enablement for at least the above-noted elements of dependent claims 3-5 and 11-13.
Therefore, the effective filing date for claims 3-5 and 11-13 of the instant application is the filling date of the instant application (18/584,083). Examiner notes that aside from claims 3-5 and 11-13, the ‘707 foreign application appears to support each of the other currently pending claims.
Each claim will receive benefit of the earliest filing date above for which a continuous chain of support can be established for the entirety of the claim. As discussed above, the effective filing date for pending claims 3-5 and 11-13 of the instant application is the filing date of the instant application no. 18/584,083 and the effective filling date for pending claims 1-2, 6-10 and 14-17 is the filling date of the parent application no. IN202341012707.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "processor" recited in claim 1, must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(o). The drawings must include descriptive legends along with reference numerals.
101, 103 and 1021-1022 in FIG.1 and 201-205 in FIG.2 should be amended to add descriptive legends.
In particular, Figures 1 and 2 need text labels to define the empty boxes in the Figures. In particular, Figures 1 and 2 both include unlabeled boxes / blocks / geometric shapes (See, e.g., shapes 101, 103 and 1021-1022 in FIG. 1 and boxes/blocks 201-205 in FIG. 2). That is, none of the boxes and shapes in FIGs. 1-2 have any text labels (only reference characters).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1).
“Figure 1” should read “FIG. 1”,
“Figure 2” should read “FIG. 2”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of terms ChatGPT®, GPT®, GPT-2®, GPT-3® and Luminous®, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term. For instance, the above-noted terms appear in paragraphs [0004], [0010] and [0018].
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Appropriate correction is required.
Paragraph [0017] of the specification states “[f]igure 2 illustrates method steps (200) prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM)”, which is grammatically incorrect and includes a typographical error. It appears this should read “[f]igure 2 illustrates method steps (200) to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Paragraph [0024] of the specification states “system (100) (101)”. Two reference numbers have been used to designate system. Reference number “101” has been previously used to designate moderation module (see e.g., paragraph [0020]). This appears to be a typographical error and should read “system (100)” instead. Appropriate correction is required.
Paragraph [0029] of the specification discloses, “[i]f the classification response received from the LLM’ says “yes” is it a prohibited input”, which is grammatically incorrect and includes a typographical error. It appears this should read “[i]f the classification response received from the LLM’ says “yes”, it is a prohibited input”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
moderation module configured to receive … and to generate … in independent claim 1.
moderation module is configured to transform … and to generate … in claim 5.
Regarding independent claim 1 and the above-noted three-prong test, the recited moderation module is a generic placeholder, configured to receive … and to generate … is functional language, and there is no recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to perform the receiving and generating.
Regarding claim 5 and the above-noted three-prong test, the recited moderation module is a generic placeholder, configured to transform … and to generate … is functional language, and there is no recitation the claim of sufficient structure to perform the transforming and generating.
A review of the specification shows that the corresponding structure is described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation:
Regarding the above-noted a moderation module configured to receive recited in independent claim 1.
Paragraph [0012] of the specification discloses “the moderation module is configured to receive the input prompt and generate at least one question prompt/ moderation output” and paragraph [0021] discloses “moderation module (101) is configured to receive the input and generate at least one moderation output”.
As such, the specification describes the claimed receiving by its functions along with disclosing specific structure performing the claimed functions.
A review of the specification shows that the corresponding structure is not described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations:
Regarding the above-noted moderation module configured … to generate recited in independent claim 1.
Paragraph [0012] of the specification discloses “question prompt (QP) module or the moderation module is configured to receive the input prompt and generate at least one question prompt/ moderation output”, paragraph [0013] discloses “QP/moderation module generates customized question prompt based on the application and scenario in which the large foundation model is deployed” and paragraph [0027] discloses, “[m]ethod step 201 comprises generating at least one moderation output by means of the moderation module (101) … moderation module (101) is configured to … generate at least one moderation output”.
However, the specification does not disclose any specific structure or steps performing the steps of the above-noted generating of the moderation module beyond the above-noted disclosure in paragraphs [0012]-[0013] and [0027].
As such, the specification describes the claimed moderation module by its functions without disclosing any specific structure performing the claimed functions.
Regarding the above-noted moderation module is configured to transform … and to generate … recited in claim 5.
Paragraphs [0021] and [0027] of the specification disclose “the moderation module (101) is configured to transform the input to text and generate a question prompt as the moderation output. Hence moderation module (101) can also be a question prompt (QP) module” and “the moderation module (101) is configured to transform the input to text and generate a question prompt as the moderation output”.
However, the specification does not disclose any specific structure or steps performing the steps of the above-noted transforming generating of the moderation module beyond the above-noted disclosure in paragraphs [0013], [0021] and [0027].
As such, the specification describes the claimed moderation module by its functions without disclosing any specific structure performing the claimed functions.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In particular, and as previously noted, the claim limitation “moderation module configured to receive … and to generate …” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
However, as noted above, the written description of the current application fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing each of the above-identified claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, for each of the claimed functions, the written description fails to disclose both an algorithm(s) and special-purpose computer hardware to perform the algorithm. For more information, see MPEP § 2181.
Claim 5 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In particular, and as previously noted, the claim limitation “moderation module configured to transform … and to generate …” in claim 5 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
However, as noted above, the written description of the current application fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing each of the above-identified claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, for each of the claimed functions, the written description fails to disclose both an algorithm(s) and special-purpose computer hardware to perform the algorithm. For more information, see MPEP § 2181.
Claims 2-9, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement under the same rationale as claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As discussed above, the claim limitation moderation module configured to receive … and to generate … in independent claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
As also noted above, the claim limitation moderation module is configured to transform … and to generate … in claim 5 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
However, as also discussed above with regard to the rejection of claim 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, the specification fails to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for the limitation moderation module configured to receive … and to generate … in independent claim 1.
The specification also failed to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for the limitation moderation module is configured to transform … and to generate … in claim 5.
As further-noted above, there is insufficient disclosure in the specification of algorithms and specific computer hardware for implementing the above-noted, claimed module. As such, the above-noted limitations in claims 1 and 5 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). For the purposes of determining patent eligibility and comparison with the prior art, the examiner is interpreting the above-listed module as any combination of software (i.e., a set of instructions, code, one or more functions or software modules) and/or hardware (i.e., circuitry and/or hardware logic components/ modules) capable of performing the claimed functions.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "configured to store the processed responses of LLM’" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant previously introduced “a response” in claim 1, line 9. However, it is unclear whether the subsequently-recited “the processed responses” refers to the previously introduced, singular “response” or whether “the processed responses” refer to new and separate processed responses not otherwise associated with the previously-introduced “response”. For the purposes of determining patent eligibility and comparison with the prior art, the Examiner is interpreting the recitation of “the processed responses” as any processed responses. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-9, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, are rejected under 35. U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "configured to store the processed responses of LLM’" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant previously introduced “a response” in claim 10, line 7-8. However, it is unclear whether the subsequently-recited “the processed responses” refers to the previously introduced, singular “response” or whether “the processed responses” refer to new and separate processed responses not otherwise associated with the previously-introduced “response”. For the purposes of determining patent eligibility and comparison with the prior art, the Examiner is interpreting the recitation of “the processed responses” as any processed responses. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11-17, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 10, are rejected under 35. U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite under the same rationale as claim 10.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the input prompt" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No “input prompt” was previously introduced in this claim or in its base claim, claim 10. For the purposes of determining patent eligibility and comparison with the prior art, the Examiner is interpreting the recitation of “the input prompt” as any input prompt. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis below of the claims’ subject matter eligibility follows the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”) and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence, 89 Fed. Reg. 58128-58138 (July 17, 2024) (“2024 AI SME Update”).
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding independent claim 1, this claim is rejected under U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a system, corresponding to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Prong 1 Analysis: The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
The claim recites the following limitations:
process the input and the at least one moderation output to get a response; and
communicate the response with at least one of the input filter and the output filter to prevent misuse of the LLM1;
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the processing and communicating limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (evaluation, judgement, opinion to mentally process observed data/the input, formulate a response through judgment/opinion and communicate the response to a generically-recited input/output filter).
Step 2 Prong 2 Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
A system to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM)2, the LLM configured to process an input and give an output, the LLM deployed in a LLM module comprising an input filter and an output filter, the system comprising:
a processor configured to implement: <the above-noted processing and communicating>
a memory module operably connected to the processor
Regarding the “system”, “processor” and “memory module operably connected to the processor and configured to store the processed responses of LLM’”, these amount to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., system and processor) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The claim also recites these additional elements:
a moderation module configured to receive the input and to generate at least one moderation output; a second large language model (LLM’), the LLM’ configured to:
receive the input and the at least one moderation output;
a memory module … configured to store the processed responses of LLM’.
Regarding the “LLM” and “LLM’”, paragraphs [0004] and [0018] of the specification disclose, “LLMs are computer programs based on AI models used for natural language processing that use deep learning and neural networks” and “the LLM could be a large language model like a chat GPT or a large vision model or large audio model or a combination of the above”. The LLM and LLM’ are recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a system including generically-recited LLM and LLM’) and amount to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding “moderation module” and “LLM module”, paragraphs [0021] and [0024] of the specification discloses “the moderation module (101) comprises a plurality of moderation models … moderation module (101) can also be a question prompt (QP) module” and “LLM module (102) could be a hardware or a software combination of these modules or could be deployed remotely on a cloud or server. These various modules can either be a software embedded in a single chip or a combination of software and hardware where each module and its functionality is executed by separate independent chips connected to each other to function as the system (100)”. The modules are recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a system including generically-recited modules) and amount to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
These are insignificant extra-solution activities that are not integrated into the claim as a whole and do not add meaningful limitation to the above-noted mental processes specified in the claim. The recitation of “receive the input” in claim 1, line 5 and “receive the input and the at least one moderation output” in claim 1, line 8 amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to apply the mental process electronically (i.e., with the generically-recited “system”, modules3, “processor”, “LLM” and “LLM’”) do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Receiving data is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Therefore, recitations of “moderation module configured to receive the input” and “receive the input and the at least one moderation” are well-understood, routine, conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
According to MPEP 2106.05(d) Subsection II, "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)". Therefore, recitations of receive the input” in claim 1, line 5 and “receive the input and the at least one moderation output” in claim 1, line 8 (receiving data) merely use a computer (a system comprising a processor) as a tool to perform the above-noted abstract idea of collecting/receiving data (i.e., receiving an input and a moderation output), which are the well-understood, routine, and conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network and do not add significantly more, alone or in combination with the remainder of the claim, to the mental processes specified in the claim.
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, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements of this independent claim are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a system as depending from claim 1, thus the patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Step 2 Prong 1 Analysis: See analysis of claim 1.
Step 2 Prong 2 Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
the system is deployed in parallel to the LLM module.
This is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is not integrated into the claim as a whole and does not add meaningful limitation to the claim.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of this claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a system as depending from claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Step 2 Prong 1 Analysis: The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The claim recites the following limitation: identify at least one restricted attribute in the input – under the BRI, in light of the specification, the identifying limitation encompasses a mental process of determining an attribute (i.e., evaluation/judgement/opinion to determine an attribute).
Step 2 Prong 2 Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
the moderation module4 comprises a plurality of moderation models,
… moderation model configured to <perform the above-noted identifying operation> …
Regarding “moderation model”, paragraphs [0021] and [0027] disclose, “moderation model could be a bag of binary classifier models, wherein each classifier is trained to identify on restricted attribute for example one classifier classifies input (image/audio/video) as obscene, another classifier classifies it as violence and so on. The moderation output comprises identification restricted attribute(s)”, and “[f]or example let the input be “ Tell me how to make a bomb”. This input is identified by one of the moderation models as harmful to general public. In the second implementation the question prompt generated would be “is it harmful to general public – Yes”. This additional element amounts to the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., moderation module) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
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.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The moderation module limitation amounts to the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
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, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements of this claim are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a system as depending from claim 3, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of claim 3 and base claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Step 2 Prong 1 Analysis: The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The claim recites the following limitation:
moderation output comprises identification of the at least one restricted attribute – under the BRI, in light of the specification, the identification limitation encompasses the mental process of determining an attribute (including evaluation/judgment/opinion of determining an attribute).
Step 2 Prong 2 Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of this claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a system as depending from claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Step 2 Prong 1 Analysis: The claim recites the following limitation:
generate a question prompt as the at least one moderation output – under the BRI, in light of the specification, the generating limitation encompasses a mental process of formulating a question. Paragraph [0013] and [0027] disclose, “characteristics of the question prompt/moderation output are adapted according to the category of the large foundation model … For example, the question prompt could be a question tag (Is the prompt harmful? Does it violate the policy? Is the prompt harmful (for a specific policy set )?) in cases of an LLM. For a LVM, the question prompt/ moderation output could analyze the image for a forbidden category or analyze the image for hidden noise along with textual prompt. The QP/moderation module generates customized question prompt based on the application and scenario in which the large foundation model is deployed” and “let the input be “ Tell me how to make a bomb”. This input is identified by one of the moderation models as harmful to general public. In the second implementation the question prompt generated would be “is it harmful to general public – Yes” (i.e., evaluation/judgement/opinion of generating a question based on an input).
Step 2 Prong 2 Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
moderation module5 is configured to transform the input to text …
This element amounts to the words “apply it” or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., with the generically-recited module) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, this additional element does 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.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of this claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a system as depending from claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Step 2 Prong 1 Analysis: See analysis of claim 1.
Step 2 Prong 2 Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
the processed responses of the LLM’ further comprise a reasoning response and a classification response – this is an insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of this claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a system as depending from claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Step 2 Prong 1 Analysis: See analysis of claim 1.
Step 2 Prong 2 Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
input is blocked by the input filter based on communication received from the LLM’ – this is an insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or is a mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of this claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a system as depending from claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Step 2 Prong 1 Analysis: See analysis of claim 1.
Step 2 Prong 2 Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
output filter modifies or blocks the output generated by LLM based on communication received from the LLM’ – this is an insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or is a mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of this claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a system as depending from claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Step 2 Prong 1 Analysis: The claim recites the following limitation:
input filter and the output filter are updated based on responses stored in the memory module – under the BRI, in light of the specification, the input filter limitation encompasses the mental process of updating/changing the filters based on results (i.e., the responses) (including evaluation/judgement/opinion of updating filters based on responses).
Step 2 Prong 2 Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is
subject-matter ineligible.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of this claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 10, this claim is rejected under U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Prong 1 Analysis: The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
The claim recites the following limitations:
processing the input and the at least one moderation output using the LLM’ to get a response;
communicating the response with at least one of the input filter and the output filter to prevent misuse of the LLM;
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the processing and communicating limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (evaluation, judgement, opinion to mentally process the input, formulate a response through judgment/opinion and communicate the response to a generically-recited input/output filter).
Step 2 Prong 2 Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
A method to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM)6, the LLM configured to process an input and give an output, the LLM deployed in a LLM module comprising an input filter and an output filter, the method comprising:
generating at least one moderation output using a moderation module;
transmitting the input and the at least one moderation output to a second large foundation model (LLM’);
storing the processed responses in a memory module.
Regarding “LLM” and “LLM’”, paragraphs [0004] and [0018] of the specification disclose “LLMs are computer programs based on AI models used for natural language processing that use deep learning and neural networks” and “the LLM could be a large language model like a chat GPT or a large vision model or large audio model or a combination of the above”. The LLM and LLM’ are recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a system including generically-recited LLM and LLM’) and amount to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding “moderation module”, paragraph [0021] of the specification discloses, “the moderation module (101) comprises a plurality of moderation models … moderation module (101) can also be a question prompt (QP) module”. It is recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a system including generically-recited module) and amount to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The generating, transmitting, storing and “LLM deployed in a LLM module” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that are not integrated into the claim as a whole and do not add meaningful limitation to the above-noted mental processes specified in the claim. The recitations of “transmitting the input and the at least one moderation output” and “storing the processed responses” amount to necessary data outputting and storing. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
According to MPEP 2106.05(d) Subsection II, "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93". Therefore, the recitation of “storing the processed responses in a memory module” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information in memory.
Transmitting data is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Therefore, the recitation of “transmitting the input and the at least one moderation output” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity of transmitting data over a network, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Mere instructions to apply the mental process electronically (i.e., with the generically-recited modules7, “LLM” and “LLM’”) do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
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, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements of this independent claim are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a method as depending from claim 10, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 10 is incorporated herein.
Step 2 Prong 1 Analysis: The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The claim recites the following limitation: identify at least one restricted attribute in the input – under the BRI, in light of the specification, the identifying limitation encompasses a mental process of determining an attribute (i.e., evaluation/judgement/opinion to determine an attribute).
Step 2 Prong 2 Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
the moderation module8 comprises a plurality of moderation models,
… moderation model configured to <perform the above-noted identifying operation> …
Regarding “moderation model”, paragraphs [0021] and [0027] disclose, “moderation model could be a bag of binary classifier models, wherein each classifier is trained to identify on restricted attribute for example one classifier classifies input (image/audio/video) as obscene, another classifier classifies it as violence and so on. The moderation output comprises identification restricted attribute(s)”, and “[f]or example let the input be “ Tell me how to make a bomb”. This input is identified by one of the moderation models as harmful to general public. In the second implementation the question prompt generated would be “is it harmful to general public – Yes”. This additional element amounts to the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., moderation module) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
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.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The moderation module limitation amounts to the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
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, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements of this claim are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a method as depending from claim 11, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of claim 12 and base claim 10 are incorporated herein.
Step 2 Prong 1 Analysis: The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The claim recites the following limitation:
moderation output comprises identification of the at least one restricted attribute – under the BRI, in light of the specification, the identification limitation encompasses the mental process of determining an attribute (including evaluation/judgment/opinion of determining an attribute).
Step 2 Prong 2 Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of this claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a method as depending from claim 10, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 10 is incorporated herein.
Step 2 Prong 1 Analysis: The claim recites the following limitation:
generate a question prompt as the at least one moderation output – under the BRI, in light of the specification, the generating limitation encompasses a mental process of formulating a question. Paragraph [0013] and [0027] disclose, “characteristics of the question prompt/moderation output are adapted according to the category of the large foundation model … For example, the question prompt could be a question tag (Is the prompt harmful? Does it violate the policy? Is the prompt harmful (for a specific policy set )?) in cases of an LLM. For a LVM, the question prompt/ moderation output could analyze the image for a forbidden category or analyze the image for hidden noise along with textual prompt. The QP/moderation module generates customized question prompt based on the application and scenario in which the large foundation model is deployed” and “let the input be “ Tell me how to make a bomb”. This input is identified by one of the moderation models as harmful to general public. In the second implementation the question prompt generated would be “is it harmful to general public – Yes” (i.e., evaluation/judgement/opinion of generating a question based on an input).
Step 2 Prong 2 Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
moderation module9 is configured to transform the input to text …
The transforming element is a data-conversion step and is an insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to the words “apply it” or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., with the generically-recited module) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, this additional element does 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.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of this claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a method as depending from claim 10, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 10 is incorporated herein.
Step 2 Prong 1 Analysis: See analysis of claim 10.
Step 2 Prong 2 Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
the processed responses of the LLM’ further comprise a reasoning response and a classification response – this element amounts to the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of this claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a method as depending from claim 10, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 10 is incorporated herein.
Step 2 Prong 1 Analysis: See analysis of claim 10.
Step 2 Prong 2 Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
blocking the input prompt using the input filter – this is an insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or is a mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of this claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a method as depending from claim 10, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 10 is incorporated herein.
Step 2 Prong 1 Analysis: See analysis of claim 10.
Step 2 Prong 2 Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
blocking or modifying the output generated by LLM using the output filter– this is an insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or is a mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of this claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a method as depending from claim 10, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 10 is incorporated herein.
Step 2 Prong 1 Analysis: The claim recites the following limitation:
input filter and the output filter are updated based on responses stored in the memory module – under the BRI, in light of the specification, the input filter limitation encompasses the mental process of updating/changing the filters based on results (i.e., the responses) (including evaluation/judgement/opinion of updating filters based on responses).
Step 2 Prong 2 Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is
subject-matter ineligible.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of this claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/675,441. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of claims 1-9 in the present application are transparently found in claims 1-9 of co-pending U.S. App No. 18/675,441 with obvious wording variations (please see the table below).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant Application No. 18/584,083 (as filed on 02/22/2024)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 18/675,441 (as filed on 5/28/2024)
1. A system to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM), the LLM configured to process an input and give an output, the LLM deployed in a LLM module comprising an input filter and an output filter, the system comprising:
a processor configured to implement:
a moderation module configured to receive the input and to generate at least one moderation output;
a second large language model (LLM’), the LLM’ configured to:
receive the input and the at least one moderation output;
process the input and the at least one moderation output to get a response; and
communicate the response with at least one of the input filter and the output filter to prevent misuse of the LLM; and
a memory module operably connected to the processor and configured to store the processed responses of LLM’.
1. A system to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM), the LLM being configured to process an input and give an output, the LLM being deployed in a LLM module further comprising an input filter and at least an output filter, the system comprising:
a moderation module configured to receive the input and generate at least one moderation output;
a second large language model (LLM'), the LLM' being configured to:
receive the input and the moderation output;
process the input and the moderation output to get a response;
communicate the response with at least one of the input filter and the output filter to prevent misuse of the LLM; and
a memory module configured to store the processed responses of the LLM'.
2. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the system is deployed in parallel to the LLM module.
2. The system to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the system is deployed in parallel to the LLM module.
3. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the moderation module comprises a plurality of moderation models, each moderation model configured to identify at least one restricted attribute in the input.
3. The system to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the moderation module comprises a plurality of moderation models, each moderation model being configured to identify at least one restricted attribute in the input.
4. The system as claimed in claim 3, wherein the at least one moderation output comprises identification of the at least one restricted attribute.
4. The system to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 3, wherein the moderation output comprises identification of at least one restricted attribute.
5. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one moderation module is configured to transform the input to text and to generate a question prompt as the at least one moderation output.
5. The system to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the moderation module is configured to transform the input to text and generate a question prompt as the moderation output.
6. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processed responses of the LLM’ further comprise a reasoning response and a classification response.
6. The system to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processed responses of the LLM' further comprise a reasoning response and a classification response.
7. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the input is blocked by the input filter based on communication received from the LLM’.
7. The system to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the input is blocked by input filter based on communication received from the LLM'.
8. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the output filter modifies or blocks the output generated by LLM based on communication received from the LLM’.
8. The system to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the output filter modifies or blocks the output generated by the LLM based on communication received from the LLM'.
9. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the input filter and the output filter are updated based on responses stored in the memory module.
9. The system to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the input filter and the output filter are updated based on responses stored in the memory module.
The table above uses the underlined text to highlight the similarities between the two applications and claims within, while the non-underlined text signifies the difference between the claim sets. Upon review of the non-underlined text, a person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the scope of the claim inventions are obvious variants of each other. To further expand on the above table, each claim listed above is either directly from the reference patent and/or obvious as explained below. Claims not directly referenced in the explanation below are believed to be adequately explained by the comparison chart above.
Based on the table of comparison, the claim 1 of the co-pending application no. 18/675,441 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application no. 18/584,083 except the instant application recites “a processor configured to implement” and “a memory module operably connected to the processor”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to have modified the co-pending application to utilize “a processor” to control one or more functions of the system claim 1 of the co-pending application 18/675,441 as a processor is implied/ inherent through the recitation of, inter alia, “configured to process” (see claim 1, line 2, and lines 10-12 of the reference application).
Regarding instant claims 2-9, the instant claims are substantially identical to claims 2-9 of the reference application 18/675,441. As shown in the table above, the system modules and operations of the claims are largely identical to the system modules and operations of claim 2-9 of the reference application, except reference claims 2-9 additionally recite “to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM)” and instant claims 2-9 do not. Notwithstanding the recitation of “to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM)” of claims 2-9 of the reference application, the functions and scope of instant claims 2-9 and reference claims 2-9 are identical to one another.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 10-17 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 10-17 of copending U.S. Application No. 18/675,441 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application No. 18/584,083 (as filed on 02/22/2024)
10. A method to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM), the LLM configured to process an input and give an output, the LLM deployed in a LLM module comprising an input filter and an output filter, the method comprising:
generating at least one moderation output using a moderation module;
transmitting the input and the at least one moderation output to a second large foundation model (LLM’);
processing the input and the at least one moderation output using the LLM’ to get a response;
communicating the response with at least one of the input filter and the output filter to prevent misuse of the LLM; and
storing the processed responses in a memory module.
11. The method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the moderation module comprises a plurality of moderation models, each moderation model configured to identify at least one restricted attribute in the input.
12. The method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the at least one moderation output comprises identification of the at least one restricted attribute.
13. The method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the moderation module is configured to transform the input to text and to generate a question prompt as the at least one moderation output.
14. The method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the processed responses of the LLM’ further comprise a reasoning response and a classification response.
15. The method as claimed in claim 10, wherein communicating the response further comprises blocking the input prompt using the input filter.
16. The method as claimed in claim 10, wherein communicating the response further comprises blocking or modifying the output generated by LLM using the output filter.
17. The method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the input filter and the output filter are updated based on responses stored in the memory module.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 18/675,441 (as filed on 5/28/2024)
10. A method to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM), the LLM being configured to process an input and give an output, the LLM being deployed in a LLM
module further comprising an input filter and at least an output filter, the method comprising:
generating at least one moderation output by way of a moderation module;
transmitting the input and the moderation output to a second large foundation model (LLM');
processing the input and the moderation output by way of the LLM' to get a response;
communicating the response with at least one of the input filter and the output filter to prevent misuse of the LLM; and
storing the processed responses in a memory module.
11. The method to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 10, wherein the moderation module comprises a plurality of moderation models, each moderation model being configured to identify at least one restricted attribute in the input.
12. The method to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 11, wherein the moderation output comprises identification of at least one restricted attribute.
13. The method to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 10, wherein the moderation module is configured to transform the input to text and
generate a question prompt as the moderation output.
14. The method to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 10, wherein the processed responses of the LLM' further comprise a reasoning response and a classification response.
15. The method to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 10, wherein communicating the response further comprises blocking the input prompt by way of the input filter.
16. The method to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 10, wherein communicating the response further comprises blocking or modifying the output generated by the LLM by way of the output filter.
17. The method to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 10, wherein the input filter and the output filter are updated based on responses stored in the memory module.
As shown in the table above, claims 10-17 of the instant application are identical to claims 10-17 of co-pending U.S. App No. 18/675,441. As noted above, this is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The references listed on form PTO-892 are all generally related to techniques, methods and systems for preventing jailbreaking/illicit use of LLMs and/or developing guardrails for AI models.
For instance, non-patent literature Bai, et al. ("Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback." arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862 (2022)) discloses techniques “apply[ing] preference modeling and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) to finetune language models to act as helpful and harmless assistants” (see, Abstract) and “[a]pplying Out-of-Distribution Detection to Reject Strange or Harmful Requests” (see, Sect. 5.4).
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAAJITA BATTINA whose telephone number is (571)270-5339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (7:30 am - 5:00 pm) EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar can be reached at 5712727796. 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.
/R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
1 This limitation includes intended use language with no patentable weight (e.g., “to prevent misuse of the LLM”). The claim and its dependent claims do not positively recite any steps or operations “to prevent misuse of the LLM”.
2 The preamble of this claim includes intended use language with no patentable weight (e.g., “prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM)”). The claim and its dependent claims do not positively recite any steps or operations “prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM)”.
3 Paragraph [0024] of the specification discloses, “the terms "component," "system (100) (101)," "module," "interface," … refer to a computer-related entity … such entities can be either hardware, a combination of hardware and software, software, or software in execution … interface(s) can include input/output (I/O) components as well as associated processor, application, or … (API) components. The system (100) could be a hardware combination of these modules or could be deployed remotely on a cloud or server … [the] modules can either be a software embedded in a single chip or a combination of software and hardware where each module and its functionality is executed by separate independent chips connected to each other to function as the system (100)”. Therefore, under the BRI, in light of the specification, the system and modules are any combination of hardware and/or software component(s) capable of performing the claimed functions (i.e., receiving/obtaining/processing/communicating data).
4 As indicated above in the 112b and 101 rejections of claim 1, “moderation module” has been interpreted as any combination of hardware and/or software component(s) capable of performing the claimed function (i.e., comprising moderation models).
5 As indicated above in the 112b and 101 rejections of claim 1, “moderation module” has been interpreted as any combination of hardware and/or software component(s) capable of performing the claimed function (i.e., comprising moderation models).
6 The preamble of this claim includes intended use language with no patentable weight (e.g., “prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM)”). The claim and its dependent claims do not positively recite any steps or operations “prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM)”.
7 Paragraph [0024] of the specification discloses, “the terms "component," "system (100) (101)," "module," "interface," … refer to a computer-related entity … such entities can be either hardware, a combination of hardware and software, software, or software in execution … interface(s) can include input/output (I/O) components as well as associated processor, application, or … (API) components. The system (100) could be a hardware combination of these modules or could be deployed remotely on a cloud or server … [the] modules can either be a software embedded in a single chip or a combination of software and hardware where each module and its functionality is executed by separate independent chips connected to each other to function as the system (100)”. Therefore, under the BRI, in light of the specification, the system and modules are any combination of hardware and/or software component(s) capable of performing the claimed functions (i.e., receiving/obtaining/processing/communicating data).
8 As indicated above in the 112b and 101 rejections of claim 1, “moderation module” has been interpreted as any combination of hardware and/or software component(s) capable of performing the claimed function (i.e., comprising moderation models).
9 As indicated above in the 112b and 101 rejections of claim 1, “moderation module” has been interpreted as any combination of hardware and/or software component(s) capable of performing the claimed function (i.e., comprising moderation models).
