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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is response to the communication filed on June 25, 2026. Claims 1-6, 8-15, 17-18 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding art rejection filed on June 25, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in the view of new ground rejection. Argument regarding 101 rejection is not persuasive.
Regarding 101, applicant argues that the limitation “one or more processors repeat the prompt adjustment iteratively until one or more predetermined thresholds are satisfied or until a predetermined number of prompt adjustment iterations are completed” imply the practical application and not “Extra-Solution Activity”.
In response examiner respectfully disagrees. The processor as claimed is nothing but generic computer processor. Further, the limitation “repeat the prompt adjustment iteratively” can be run with programing algorithm wherein the programing algorithm executed by the recited generic computer processor which is well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions and considered insignificant extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, 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)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 1-6, 8-15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding the claim 1, it recites receive a search request for searching for information; automatically generate a first prompt instructing a large language model to search for the information requested in the search request; provide the first prompt to the large language model; analyze a first search result, output by the large language model based on the first prompt, to determine whether an error exists in the first search result; in response to determining that the error exists in the first search result, identify a source of information that the large language model is required to use in searching and automatically execute prompt adjustment to generate a second prompt that is different from the first prompt, wherein the second prompt includes the source of information; and provide the second prompt to the large language model, wherein the one or more processors repeat the prompt adjustment iteratively until one or more predetermined thresholds are satisfied or until a predetermined number of prompt adjustment iterations are completed, and the one or more search result predetermined thresholds include at least one of a predetermined character count, a predetermined word count, and predetermined phrase.
The claim recited the limitation of “analyze a first search result, output by the large language model based on the first prompt, to determine whether an error exists in the first search result, identify a source of information that the large language model is required to use in searching” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. User can mentally analyze search result to identify any error/issue in the search result. Therefore, the analyzing step limitation is a mental process.
The claim recites four additional elements: automatically generate a first prompt instructing a large language model to search for the information requested in the search request; provide the first prompt to the large language model; in response to determining that the error exists in the first search result, automatically execute prompt adjustment to generate a second prompt that is different from the first prompt; and provide the second prompt to the large language model, wherein the one or more processors repeat the prompt adjustment iteratively until one or more predetermined thresholds are satisfied or until a predetermined number of prompt adjustment iterations are completed, and the one or more search result predetermined thresholds include at least one of a predetermined character count, a predetermined word count, and predetermined phrase. These limitations are insignificant extra solution activity as they are noting but mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, the 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 directed to the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, 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)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of prompt training for query modification. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the error is determined to exist when the first search result fails to meet one or more predetermined thresholds, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of prompt training for query modification. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the error is determined to exist when execution of the first prompt by the large language model exceeds an allocated time limit, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of prompt training for query modification. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the error is determined to exist when searching based on the first prompt exceeds available processing resources, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of prompt training for query modification. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the error is a network or connectivity error, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of prompt training for query modification. The claim recites the limitations of the second prompt differs from the first prompt in at least one of content of the search request and the sources of information the large language model uses in searching for the information requested in the search request, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of prompt training for query modification. The claim recites the limitations of in response to determining that the error does not exist in the first search result, the one or more processors cause a report to be generated and output to a display, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of prompt training for query modification. The claim recites the limitations of the one or more processors generate a parsing prompt instructing the large language model to parse out statements from the first search result and generate, as the report, a response with the parsed statements categorized into predefined categories, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
As to claims 10-15, 17-18, they have similar limitations as of claims 1-6, 8-9 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-6, 8-9 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (Pub. No. : US 20240289395 A1) in the view of Sateli et al. (Pub. No. : US 20250238347 A1) and Wood (Pub. No. : US 20160132562 A1)
As to claim 1 Zhou teaches an iterative prompt training apparatus comprising: one or more processors programmed to:
receive a search request for searching for information (paragraph [0028]: receiving a search query);
automatically generate a first prompt instructing a large language model to search for the information requested in the search request (paragraph [0034]-[0035]: user interface 210 may be configured to receive a prompt context 215 from the user device 106, wherein the the large language model 230 is trained to generate conversational responses to prompts);
provide the first prompt to the large language model (paragraph [0067]: provides the first prompt context to a query generator and obtains a first generated query from the query generator);
analyze a first search result, output by the large language model based on the first prompt, to determine whether an error exists in the first search result (paragraph [0052]-[0057]: query refinement user interface 310a may be configured to provide (display) the prompt context (e.g., prior prompts and responses));
in response to determining that the error exists in the first search result, identify a source of information that the large language model is required to use the searching and automatically execute prompt adjustment to generate a second prompt that is different from the first prompt, wherein the second prompt includes the source of information (paragraphs [0029], [0052]-[0053], [0057], [0060]: factually-grounded generative system 130 to request properties of the returned search results, e.g., a particular number of search results, a particular minimum relevancy of search results, etc., for a query. The query refiner 320 may be configured to use the model logs 270 to identify “inaccurate” seed conversations. The query refinement user interface 310a receive a relevancy indicator (i. e. source information) from the user, the relevancy indicator being an indication of whether or not the query is relevant to the prompt. The query refinement user interface 310a further receive a factual accuracy (i. e. source information) and the query refiner 320 may use query refinements obtained from users and train a model to perform the query refinements); and
provide the second prompt to the large language model (paragraphs [0059], [0069]-[0070]: The factual accuracy user interface 310b may be configured to display the prompt context (e.g., prior prompt rounds) and the response generated for the current prompt).
Zhou does not explicitly disclose but Sateli teaches wherein the one or more processors repeat the prompt adjustment iteratively until one or more predetermined thresholds are satisfied or until a predetermined number of prompt adjustment iterations are completed (paragraph [0313]: If the generated output does not meet the intended formality effect, the prompts are adjusted and resubmitted to the LLM. This iterative feedback loop is repeated until the desired result is achieved). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhou by adding above limitation as taught by Sateli to provide iterative refinement to achieve the desired gradation (Sateli, paragraph [0311]).
Zhou and Sateli do not explicitly disclose but Wood teaches the one or more search result predetermined thresholds include at least one of a predetermined character count, a predetermined word count, and a predetermined phrase (paragraph [0143]: if the entry count 330 represents three characters, the count threshold 334 can be set at five characters. Based on the count threshold 334, the result module 510 can generate the search result 224 having the character count 332 meeting or exceeding five characters). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhou and Sateli by adding above limitation as taught by Wood to improve the delivery of the search result (Wood, paragraph [0122).
As to claim 2 Zhou together with Sateli and Wood teach an apparatus according to claim 1. Zhou teaches wherein the error is determined to exist when the first search result fails to meet one or more predetermined thresholds (paragraph [0052]).
As to claim 3 Zhou together with Sateli and Wood teach an apparatus according to claim 1. Zhou teaches wherein the error is determined to exist when execution of the first prompt by the large language model exceeds an allocated time limit (paragraph [0052]).
As to claim 4 Zhou together with Sateli and Wood teach an apparatus according to claim 1. Zhou teaches wherein the error is determined to exist when searching based on the first prompt exceeds available processing resources (paragraph [0052], [0058]).
As to claim 5 Zhou together with Sateli and Wood teach an apparatus according to claim 1. Zhou teaches wherein the error is a network or connectivity error (paragraph [0019]).
As to claim 6 Zhou together with Sateli and Wood teach an apparatus according to claim 1. Zhou teaches wherein the second prompt differs from the first prompt in at least one of content of the search request and the sources of information the large language model uses in searching for the information requested in the search request (paragraph [0035]).
As to claim 8 Zhou together with Sateli and Wood teach an apparatus according to claim 1. Zhou teaches wherein in response to determining that the error does not exist in the first search result, the one or more processors cause a report to be generated and output to a display (paragraphs [0028], [0072]).
As to claim 9 Zhou together with Sateli and Wood teach an apparatus according to claim 1. Zhou teaches wherein the one or more processors generate a parsing prompt instructing the large language model to parse out statements from the first search result and generate, as the report, a response with the parsed statements categorized into predefined categories (paragraphs [0036], [0058]).
As to claims 10-15, 17-18, they have similar limitations as of claims 1-6, 8-9 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-6, 8-9 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD I UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/MD I UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights