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 responsive to the Application filed on 3/11/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
The term “unstructured data comprising values for a strict subset of the set of fields” in claims 1, 8 and 15 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “strict” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
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 itis 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. Applicant is advised to consult the 2019 PEG for more details of the analysis.
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Claims 1-7 are drawn to a system, claims 8-14 are drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and claims 15-20 are drawn to a method, therefore each of these claim groups falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of matter; Step 1). Nonetheless, the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significant more (Step 2A, see below). Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are non-verbatim but similar in claim construction, hence share the same rationale that the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows:
As to claim 1:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “generating a prompt comprising general instructions, an output schema comprising a set of fields, and unstructured data comprising values for a strict subset of the set of fields” and “to generate structured data from unstructured data using a training set comprising a plurality of training prompts, the plurality of training prompts including the generated prompt” are the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “training a large language model (LLM)” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “training a large language model (LLM)” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “a memory that stores instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to perform operations” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
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 when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
No, this limitation “training a large language model (LLM)” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “training a large language model (LLM)” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “a memory that stores instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to perform operations” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
Furthermore, regarding dependent claims 2-7 which are dependent on claim 1, claims 9-14 which are dependent on claim 8, and claims 16-20 which are dependent on claim 15, the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more as highlighted below in the claim limitations by evaluating the claim limitations under Step 2A and 2B:
Dependent claims 2, 9 and 16
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “wherein the operations further comprise: accessing a pre-determined number of positive fields to include in the output schema; and accessing a pre-determined number of negative fields to exclude from the output schema” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claims 3, 10 and 17
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “wherein the operations further comprise: generating a plurality of additional training prompts, each training prompt of the plurality of additional training prompts comprising general instructions, an output schema comprising a set of fields, and unstructured data comprising values for the pre-determined number of positive fields and excluding values for the pre-determined number of negative fields; and including the plurality of additional training prompts in the plurality of training prompts.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claims 4, 11 and 18
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “wherein the operations further comprise: randomly selecting, for each training prompt of the plurality of additional training prompts, from the set of fields, the pre-determined number of positive fields to include” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claims 5, 12 and 19
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “generating a plurality of additional training prompts, by operations comprising, for each training prompt of the plurality of additional training prompts: determining, according to a probability distribution, a number of positive fields to include and a number of negative fields to exclude; and generating the training prompt of the plurality of additional training prompts to include general instructions, an output schema comprising a set of fields, and unstructured data comprising values for the determined number of positive fields and excluding values for the determined number of negative fields; and including the plurality of additional training prompts in the plurality of training prompts.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claims 6, 13 and 20
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “wherein the probability distribution is a Poisson distribution” is the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship, as directed to “a mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claims 7 and 14
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “wherein the training of the LLM uses a loss function that masks the training prompts from learning.” is the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship, as directed to “a mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
The dependent claims as analyzed above, do not recite limitations that integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. In addition, the claim limitations do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). Therefore, the claims do not recite any limitations, when considered individually or as a whole, that recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more”, see MPEP 2106.05; and therefore, as a whole the claims are not patent eligible.
As shown above, the dependent claims do not provide any additional elements that when considered individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified. Therefore, as a whole the dependent claims do not recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite, when claim elements are examined individually and as a whole, elements that the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “A Method for Extracting Information from Long Documents that Combines Large Language Models with Natural Language Understanding Techniques”, Chen et al, 12/15/2023.
Referring to claims 1, 8 and 15, Chen discloses a system comprising: a memory that stores instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:
generating a prompt comprising general instructions, an output schema comprising a set of fields, and unstructured data comprising values for a strict subset of the set of fields; (page 3, Tables I and II of Chen, generating a prompt such as the prompt template, with general instructions, such as “please extract the key information…”, an output schema comprising a set of fields, such as “contract content”, etc, and unstructured data/long text for a subset of fields, such as “key-value pair with the key”) and
training a large language model (LLM) to generate structured data from unstructured data using a training set comprising a plurality of training prompts, the plurality of training prompts including the generated prompt. (page 3, Tables I and II and header III “Methods” of Chen, training LLM with training prompts which includes generated prompt)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “A Method for Extracting Information from Long Documents that Combines Large Language Models with Natural Language Understanding Techniques”, Chen et al, 12/15/2023 and in view of Manikani et al (US 20240428138 A1).
Referring to claim 7 and 14, Chen discloses the system of claim 1. Chen does not specifically disclose wherein the training of the LLM uses a loss function that masks the training prompts from learning.
However, Manikani discloses of training the LLM using loss function for the prompts ([0003] of Manikani).
Chen and Manikani are analogous art because both references concern LLM training. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Chen’s training of LLM with prompts with calculate loss function of the LLM for training prompt as taught by Manikani. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimate the trained LLM based on prompt and answer of the training document.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 9-13 and 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
101 rejections still remain.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
“Structured information extraction from scientific text with large language models”, Dagdelen et al, 2023, Extracting structured knowledge from scientific text remains a challenging
task for machine learning models. Here, we present a simple approach to joint named entity recognition and relation extraction and demonstrate how pretrained large language models (GPT-3, Llama-2) can be fine-tuned to extract useful records of complex scientific knowledge. We test three representative tasks in materials chemistry: linking dopants and host materials, cataloging metal-organic frameworks, and general composition/phase/morphology/ application information extraction. Records are extracted from single sentences or entire paragraphs, and the output can be returned as simple English sentences or a more structured format such as a list of JSON objects. This approach represents a simple, accessible, and highly flexible route to obtaining large databases of structured specialized scientific knowledge extracted from research papers.
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://;www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e- mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIMEI JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached at 571-270-1006. 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.
/HAIMEI JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights