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 .
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: claims 1-20 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
With respect to claims 10,1,19:
2A Prong 1:
determining, with the AI orchestrator, to generate a generative AI response to the user question with a generative AI model, comprising: determining a domain associated with the user question; and determining the user question comprises a request for an explanation of an output of the application (abstract idea of analyzing data. Mental process. A human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data);
generating a prompt for the generative AI model based on the user question(abstract idea of analyzing data. Mental process. A human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data);
generating the prompt based on the [knowledge engine] explanation (abstract idea of analyzing data. Mental process. A human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data);
parsing the knowledge engine explanation for information elements used in the prompt for the generative AI model (mental process of modeling with assistance of pen and paper).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
claim 10. processing system, a memory (computer component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358);
receiving, at an artificial intelligence (AI) orchestrator a user question regarding an application used by a user (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
receiving user application session information associated with the user and the application; providing the user application session information to a [knowledge engine] (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
knowledge engine(computer component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358);
receiving from the knowledge engine a knowledge engine explanation, wherein the knowledge engine explanation is in XML format (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
providing the prompt to the [generative AI model](mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
generative AI model(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f));
receiving from the [generative AI model] the generative AI response(mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
providing the generative AI response for responding to the user question, wherein the generative AI response comprises a chat message for sending via a chat service(mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
chat message for sending via a chat service (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea." MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).III. "Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions." Id. For the purposes of this abstract idea, "[t]he courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
claim 10. processing system, a memory (computer component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358);
receiving, at an artificial intelligence (AI) orchestrator a user question regarding an application used by a user (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
receiving user application session information associated with the user and the application; providing the user application session information to a [knowledge engine] (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
knowledge engine(computer component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358);
receiving from the knowledge engine a knowledge engine explanation, wherein the knowledge engine explanation is in XML format (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
providing the prompt to the [generative AI model](mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
generative AI model(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f));
receiving from the [generative AI model] the generative AI response(mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
providing the generative AI response for responding to the user question, wherein the generative AI response comprises a chat message for sending via a chat service(mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
chat message for sending via a chat service (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea." MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).III. "Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions." Id. For the purposes of this abstract idea, "[t]he courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.).
Further, the receiving/transmitting steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong 2, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The receiving and/or transmitting limitations constitute extra-solution activity. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-with no further specification-is not even arguably inventive."). The court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely Receiving and/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). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed receiving/transmitting steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is not patent eligible.
11,2. The processing system of Claim 10, wherein the user question is received via selection of a user interface element(computer component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358) associated with the application(mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
12,3. The processing system of Claim 10, wherein the user question is received via a chat service(mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
13,4. The processing system of Claim 10, wherein: the knowledge engine explanation is in XML format, and the processor is configured to cause the processing system (computer component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358)to generate the prompt based on the knowledge engine explanation comprising parsing the knowledge engine explanation for information elements used in the prompt for the generative AI model(mental process of modeling with assistance of pen and paper).
14,5,20. The processing system of Claim 13, wherein the information elements are parsed by processing the knowledge engine explanation with a parser model trained to reduce a number of tokens of the prompt for the generative AI model(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high level application of a previously trained model to make a prediction);.
15,6. The processing system of Claim 10, wherein the generative AI response comprises a chat message for sending via a chat service(mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea." MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).III. "Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions." Id. For the purposes of this abstract idea, "[t]he courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.).
16,7. The processing system of Claim 10, wherein the generative AI model is a large language machine learning model. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high level application of a previously trained model to make a prediction);
17,8. The processing system of Claim 10, wherein to generate the prompt, the processing system is further configured to compress the prompt(Abstract idea of analyzing data. Mental process. A human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data).
18,9. The processing system of Claim 10, wherein to determine, with the AI orchestrator(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high level application of a previously trained model to make a prediction);, to generate the generative AI response (Abstract idea of analyzing data. Mental process. A human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data);to the user question with a generative AI model (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high level application of a previously trained model to make a prediction) the processing system is further configured to: determine a domain associated with the user question; and determine the user question comprises a request for an explanation of an output of the application(Abstract idea of analyzing data. Mental process. A human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ramanasankaran; Rajiv et al. (US 2024/0345551) teaches application sessions (0009; “perform operations to implement at least one application session 308 for a client device 304. For example, responsive to configuring the machine learning models 268, the system 200 can generate data for presentation by the client device 304 (including generating data responsive to information received from the client device 304) using the at least one application session 308 and the one or more machine learning models 268.”, 0089), GenAI (“use machine learning models, including LLMs and other generative AI systems, to capture data, including but not limited to unstructured knowledge from various data sources, and process the data to accurately generate outputs, such as completions responsive to prompts, including in structured data formats for various applications and use cases.”, 0023; “While various implementations are described as being implemented using generative AI models such as transformers and/or GANs, in some embodiments, various features described herein can be implemented using non-generative AI models or even without using AI/machine learning”, 0024), token limits (0022); prompts (“after performing prompt engineering on the user's prompt, at step 912, instead of applying the prompt-engineered user prompt to a similarity search database, the prompt-engineered user prompt can be applied to a fine-tuned graph query completion model, at step 1102. The fine-tuned graph query completion model can produce a graph query (e.g., a SPARQL query) configured to pull nodes and/or edges from a knowledge graph that are relevant to the user prompt (e.g., relevant to a question indicated within the user prompt). Once the graph query has been generated, the graph query can be applied to a graph query runner, at step 1104, to pull the relevant nodes and/or edges from the knowledge graph obtained at step 902 to generate a relevant knowledge subgraph, at step 1106.”, 0151).
Screenidurao (US 2025/0190623) teaches GenAI with chatbot domains, prompts and models (“This may prompt privacy protection chatbot 122a to respond to chatbot 132 with questions in a priming message 304, which alerts chatbot 132 of such pending questions”, 0069).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R VINCENT whose telephone number is (571)272-3080. The examiner can normally be reached ~Mon-Fri 12-8:30.
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, Alexey Shmatov can be reached at 5712703428. 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.
/DAVID R VINCENT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2123
Prosecution Insights