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 .
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 13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 13 recites “generate …” and “update …”. These limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor”. For example, but for the “processor” language, these steps in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually generating a response to a question and updating the set of anchor words or keywords by adding or removing words from the list. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements - using a processor to perform these steps. The use of a processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer device performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. 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 step of “receive” and “obtain” are merely for the purpose of data gathering and/or insignificant extra-solution activity that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Similar to independent claim 13 above, the steps of “receive …” and “generate … a subsequent response …” in dependent claim 17, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing these steps. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Similar to independent claim 13 above, the steps of “update …” and “generate … a subsequent response …” in dependent claim 18, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing these steps. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Similar to independent claim 13 above, the steps of “… add … word …” and “… remove … word …” in dependent claim 19, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing these steps. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Similar to independent claim 13 above, the steps of “detecting …” and “… anchor words is updated…” in dependent claim 20, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing these steps. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Perez et al. (USPG 2025/0272332, hereinafter Perez).
Regarding claim 13, Perez discloses a computing device comprising:
a memory storing executable code and a communications interface (paragraph 112 and/or figures 1-2); a processor interconnected with the communications interface and the memory to execute code (paragraphs 103-114, “processors”), the code operable to cause the processor to:
receive a query (figure 1 and/or paragraph 23, “The digital content delivery system 101 can receive user requests for content 185 from a user computing device 180”);
obtain a set of anchored words for calibrating a response to the query (figure and/or paragraphs 24-26, accessing “keyword list repository 115”);
generate, at a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model, an initial response to the query, wherein the initial response is calibrated by providing, to the generative AI model, the set of anchored words as additional prompts (figure 1 and/or paragraphs 24-30, the request response engine 150 process both the query and the keyword list to determine a content as a response the user request); and
update the set of anchored words with one or more keywords from the query and the initial response (paragraphs 35, 60-61, 87-96, updating keyword list).
Regarding claim 17, Perez further discloses the computing device of claim 13, wherein the code is further operable to cause the processor to: receive a subsequent query (see claim 1, and figure 1 of Perez is a dynamic system, meaning input are received and processed continuously); and generate, at the generative AI model, a subsequent response to the query, wherein the subsequent response is calibrated by providing, to the generative AI model, the updated set of anchored words as additional prompts, wherein the updated set of anchored words includes the one or more keywords from the initial query and the initial response (see claim 1 and processes in figures 1-2, the keywords and AI model are “fine-tuned” each time the system is in use).
Regarding claims 18-20, Perez further discloses the computing device of claim 13, wherein the code is further operable to cause the processor to: in response to receiving a user instruction to update the set of anchored words, update the set of anchored words according to the user instruction (paragraphs 35, 60-61, 87, updating keyword list and/or AI model is done through user “feedback” or automatically); and generate an adjusted response to the query based on the updated set of anchored words to anchor the adjusted response (figures 1-2 and/or see claim 1 above, keyword list and AI model are updated or fine-tuned each time in use); wherein the user instruction comprises: (i) an anchoring instruction to add one or more additional word to the set of anchored words; or (ii) a de-anchoring instruction to remove one or more anchored word from the set of anchored words (paragraphs 44-49, adding or remove keywords); and wherein receiving the user instruction comprises detecting a formatting instruction of a given word at a graphical user interface (figures 3A-G, GUI); and wherein the set of anchored words is updated based on the given word (figures 3A-G, GUI).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 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.
Claims 1-12 are allowed over the prior art on record. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art on record discloses receive a query (figure 1 and/or paragraph 23, “The digital content delivery system 101 can receive user requests for content 185 from a user computing device 180”); obtain a set of anchored words for calibrating a response to the query (figure and/or paragraphs 24-26, accessing “keyword list repository 115”); generate, at a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model, an initial response to the query, wherein the initial response is calibrated by providing, to the generative AI model, the set of anchored words as additional prompts (figure 1 and/or paragraphs 24-30, the request response engine 150 process both the query and the keyword list to determine a content as a response the user request); and update the set of anchored words with one or more keywords from the query and the initial response (paragraphs 35, 60-61, 87-96, updating keyword list). The prior art on record, individually or in combination, fails to explicitly disclose the combination of the limitations regarding “identifying the one or more keywords from the query and the initial response by cross-referencing the query and the initial response to a secondary database; determining an anchoring weight of each of the one or more keywords based on the cross-referencing to the secondary database; and updating the set of anchored words with the one or more keywords having the anchoring weight exceeding a threshold anchoring weight.” Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, claims 1-12 are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sharangpani (USPG 2016/0188645) teaches a keyword-based search and retrieval method that is considered pertinent to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUYEN X VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at 571-272-7453. 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.
/HUYEN X VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656