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 .
Status of Claims
The present application is being examined under the claims filed on March 26, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 4, 2024 and August 7, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
FIG. 4 of the drawings, filed March 26, 2024, are objected to because it contains text placed upon shaded surfaces [see CFR 1.84(p)(3)]. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 17, “once a .
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10 and 20 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.
Regarding Claims 10 and 20:
Claims 10 and 20 recite “a generative artificial intelligence (AI)”. Their respective parent claims, claims 1 and 11, also recite “a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model”. It is unclear if the generative AI from the dependent claims are referring to the generative AI from the independent claims or if they are referring to another distinct generative AI. Examiner is interpreting the generative AI from claims 10 and 20 to be referring to the generative AI from claims 1 and 11.
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 1-10 are directed to a method [process].
Claims 11-20 are directed to a system [machine].
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong 1: The following limitations are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
(a) processing interactions between a user and the chat assistant as nodes…
(b) establishing connections between the nodes…the connections enabling context to be passed between the nodes
propagates an update to an interaction of a corresponding node as the context to other connected nodes
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). Given a sufficiently small set of data, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are 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)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
A method executed by a connection engine implemented as a computer program within a computing environment, the connection engine executing a chat assistant utilizing generative artificial intelligence (AI) model, the method comprising:
generating a graph-based interaction interface
(a) …within the graph-based interaction interface
(b) …of the graph-based interaction interface…
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are 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)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A method executed by a connection engine implemented as a computer program within a computing environment, the connection engine executing a chat assistant utilizing generative artificial intelligence (AI) model, the method comprising:
generating a graph-based interaction interface
(a) …within the graph-based interaction interface
(b) …of the graph-based interaction interface…
Regarding Claim 2:
Step 2A, Prong 1: This claim recites the same abstract ideas as in the parent claim.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are 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)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
wherein the chat assistant comprises a large language model (LLM)-based chatbot providing a graph-based chat assistant
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are 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)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the chat assistant comprises a large language model (LLM)-based chatbot providing a graph-based chat assistant
Regarding Claim 3:
Step 2A, Prong 1: This claim recites the same abstract ideas as in the parent claim.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are 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)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
wherein the generative AI model comprises a large language model (LLM) gateway
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are 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)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the generative AI model comprises a large language model (LLM) gateway
Regarding Claim 4:
Step 2A, Prong 1: This claim recites the same abstract ideas as in the parent claim. Additionally,
The following limitations are/remain directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
wherein the connections comprise outputs of a previous node as inputs to a latter node
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 5:
Step 2A, Prong 1: This claim recites the same abstract ideas as in the parent claim. Additionally,
The following limitations are/remain directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
wherein the connections express a complex output or document with multiple dependent parts
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 6:
Step 2A, Prong 1: This claim recites the same abstract ideas as in the parent claim.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are 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)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
wherein the connections are displayed by the graph-based interaction interface of the chat assistant as arrows
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are 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)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the connections are displayed by the graph-based interaction interface of the chat assistant as arrows
Regarding Claim 7:
Step 2A, Prong 1: This claim recites the same abstract ideas as in the parent claim.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are 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)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
wherein all connected interactions are updated in concert once a connection is established
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are 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)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein all connected interactions are updated in concert once a connection is established
Regarding Claim 8:
Step 2A, Prong 1: This claim recites the same abstract ideas as in the parent claim.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are 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)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
wherein the computing environment comprises a cloud environment
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are 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)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the computing environment comprises a cloud environment
Regarding Claim 9:
Step 2A, Prong 1: This claim recites the same abstract ideas as in the parent claim.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are 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)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
wherein the interaction comprises a reusable artificial intelligence (AI) workflow
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are 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)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the interaction comprises a reusable artificial intelligence (AI) workflow
Regarding Claim 10:
Step 2A, Prong 1: This claim recites the same abstract ideas as in the parent claim.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are 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)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
wherein the chat assistant outputs a reply using a generative artificial intelligence (AI)
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are 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)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the chat assistant outputs a reply using a generative artificial intelligence (AI)
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11 corresponds to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: This claim recites the same abstract ideas as in the corresponding claim.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This claim recites the same additional elements as in the corresponding claim. There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The analysis of this claim at this step mirror that of corresponding claim, with the addition/exception the following limitations.
The following additional elements are 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)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
A system comprising: a memory storing a computer program for a connection engine executing a chat assistant utilizing generative artificial intelligence (AI) model; and at least one processor executes the computer program to cause the connection engine and the system to perform:
Step 2B: This claim recites the same additional elements as in the corresponding claim. There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis of this claim at this step mirror that of claim corresponding, with the addition/exception the following limitations.
The following additional elements are 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)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A system comprising: a memory storing a computer program for a connection engine executing a chat assistant utilizing generative artificial intelligence (AI) model; and at least one processor executes the computer program to cause the connection engine and the system to perform:
Regarding Claims 12-20:
Claims 12-20 correspond to claims 2-10. In particular, 12:2, 13:3, 14:4, 15:5, 16:6, 17:7, 18:8, 19:9, 20:10.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 12-20 recite the same abstract ideas as in claims 2-10.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The analysis of claims 12-20 at this step mirror that of claims 2-10.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis of claims 12-20 at this step mirror that of claims 2-10.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (“C5: Toward Better Conversation Comprehension and Contextual Continuity for ChatGPT”), hereinafter Liang, in view of Xu et al. (US 12332896), hereinafter Xu.
Regarding Claim 1:
Liang discloses:
A method executed by a connection engine implemented as a computer program within a computing environment, the connection engine…, the method comprising:
Liang, p. 2, “C5, an interactive conversation visualization system, clearly presents the conversation content and structure. It assists users in efficiently exploring the conversation history and provides con textual information when posing questions, thereby enhancing conversation comprehension for users and contextual continuity for ChatGPT.”
Liang discloses an interactive conversation visualization system to enhance conversations between a user and ChatGPT.
generating a graph-based interaction interface
Liang, p. 4, col. 2, “The Global View (Fig. 1(a)) is the main entry panel of the system, designed to provide a full view of conversations (T1) in a temporal perspective and to help users locate conversation history of interest through an interactive interface (T2). The Global View primarily consists of Content View (Fig. 1(a1)) and Brush View (Fig. 1(a2)) to present the data obtained through data processing.”
PNG
media_image1.png
546
933
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Liang discloses that their system has an interactive interface [generating a…interaction interface]. Their system includes the global view, which consists of the content and brush view [graph-based].
processing interactions between a user and the chat assistant as nodes within the graph-based interaction interface
Liang, p. 5, FIG. 2 caption, “C5 workflow. (a) We first obtain the conversation history data from the ChatGPT web page and divide it into individual conversation nodes. (b) These data are processed using text embedding and topic classification. (c) The user can interactively explore conversation history through three visual components that compose our framework. Finally, (d) we achieve incremental updates through real-time integration and visualization, in order to display the latest conversation history”
p. 4, “In addition, users can hover over nodes of interest (especially those at topic transitions) and the system will display an overview diagram of that Q&A content (T5). To view the original conversation text (T5), users can click on the corresponding node to access detailed information in the Q&A view (Fig. 1(c1)). This view provides users with an effective approach to discover and explore salient local features of the conversation history for enhancing users’ conversation comprehension.”
p. 5, “The existing topic relationship can be essentially represented as a graph with a fixed number of nodes, denoted by
G
=
(
V
,
E
)
.”
On p. 5, under FIG. 2, Liang discloses processing the conversation between a user and ChatGPT into conversation nodes [processing interactions between a user and the chat assistant as nodes]. Further on p. 4 and 5, Liang discloses the conversation nodes are a part of the interactive graph interface [within the graph-based interaction interface].
establishing connections between the nodes of the graph-based interaction interface, the connections enabling context to be passed between the nodes
Liang, p. 4, “the positions of nodes are determined by order and topic, and connected by solid lines. In complex conversation histories, relationships among dialog components can be intricate. Solid lines offer an intuitive means to visually represent the continuity and progression of the conversation, emphasizing not only the temporal sequence but also the way topics evolve and sometimes interconnect. This visual representation is crucial for users to holistically grasp the conversation’s structure, making it easier to identify patterns, trends, and topic transitions. Furthermore, as conversations naturally flow and can contain overlapping themes, the connections support an enhanced contextual understanding.”
Liang discloses determining connections between nodes [establishing connections between the nodes of the graph-based interaction interface] to support an enhanced contextual understanding [the connections enabling context to be passed between the nodes].
propagates an update to an interaction of a corresponding node as the context to other connected nodes
As cited above, FIG. 2’s caption on p. 5, Liang discloses incremental updates through real-time integration and visualization in order to display the latest conversation history [propagates an updates to an interaction of a corresponding node as the context to other connected nodes].
Liang does not explicitly disclose:
…executing a chat assistant utilizing generative artificial intelligence (AI) model…
However, in the same field, analogous art Xu teaches:
…executing a chat assistant utilizing generative artificial intelligence (AI) model…
Xu, [41], “As used herein, dialog, chat, or conversation may refer to one or more conversational threads involving a user of a computing device and an application…A round of dialog as used herein may refer to a user input and an associated system-generated response, e.g., a reply to the user input that is generated at least in part via a generative artificial intelligence model.”
Xu teaches using a generative artificial intelligence model to generate a reply to a user input [executing a chat assistant utilizing generative artificial intelligence (AI) model].
Liang, Xu, and the instant application are analogous art because they are all directed to AI chatbots.
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 Liang with Xu to use generative AI in order because “A generative artificial intelligence (GAI) model or generative model uses artificial intelligence technology, e.g., neural networks, to machine-generate new digital content based on model inputs and the previously existing data with which the model has been trained…A generative language model is a particular type of GAI model that is capable of generating new text in response to model input. The model input includes a task description, also referred to as a prompt. The task description can include instructions and/or examples of digital content. A task description can be in the form of natural language text, such as a question or a statement, and can include non-text forms of content, such as digital imagery and/or digital audio” (Xu, [59]-[60]).
Regarding Claim 2:
As discussed above Liang in view of Xu teach [the] method of claim 1, and Liang further discloses:
the chat assistant comprises a large language model (LLM)-based chatbot providing a graph-based chat assistant
Liang, p.9, col. 1, “LLM-Visualization Synergy:…In our work, we have used LLMs like GPT and observed that they simplify the workflow and achieve better topic modeling results. Compared to LDA models, LLMs do not require a predetermined number of topics, thus avoiding subjectivity.”
Liang discloses ChatGPT as their LLM for LLM-Visualization [chat assistant comprises a large language model (LLM)-based chatbot providing a graph-based chat assistant].
Regarding Claim 4:
As discussed above Liang in view of Xu teach [the] method of claim 1, and Liang further discloses:
wherein the connections comprise outputs of a previous node as inputs to a latter node
Liang, p. 4, col. 2, “the positions of nodes are determined by order and topic, and connected by solid lines. In complex conversation histories, relationships among dialogue components can be intricate. Solid lines offer an intuitive means to visually represent the continuity and progression of the conversation, emphasizing not only the temporal sequence but also the way topics evolve and sometimes interconnect.”
Liang discloses solid lines connecting the nodes to represent continuity and progression [wherein the connections comprise outputs of a previous node as inputs to a latter node].
Regarding Claim 5:
As discussed above Liang in view of Xu teach [the] method of claim 1, and Liang further discloses:
wherein the connections express a complex output or document with multiple dependent parts
Liang, p. 4, col. 2, “the positions of nodes are determined by order and topic, and connected by solid lines. In complex conversation histories, relationships among dialogue components can be intricate. Solid lines offer an intuitive means to visually represent the continuity and progression of the conversation, emphasizing not only the temporal sequence but also the way topics evolve and sometimes interconnect.”
Liang discloses the solid lines connecting the nodes to represent continuity and progression are used to help break down complex conversation histories, relationships among dialogue components [wherein the connections express a complex output or document with multiple dependent parts].
Regarding Claim 7:
As discussed above Liang in view of Xu teach [the] method of claim 1, and Liang further discloses:
wherein all connected interactions are updated in concert once a connection is established
Liang, p. 4, col. 1, “Incremental Update (Fig. 2(d)), when users pose new questions, the system helps users add specific context information and sends it along with the question to ChatGPT. Subsequently, the system automatically repeats the first three stages, integrating new content and updating the visualization interface in real-time.”
Liang discloses integrating the new content [once a connection is established] and updating the visualization interface in real-time [all connected interactions are updated in concert].
Regarding Claim 8:
As discussed above Liang in view of Xu teach [the] method of claim 1, and Xu further discloses:
wherein the computing environment comprises a cloud environment
Xu, [205], “The machine is connected (e.g., networked) to other machines in a network, such as a local area network (LAN), an intranet, an extranet, and/or the Internet. The machine can operate in the capacity of…a server or a client machine in a cloud computing infrastructure or environment.”
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 Liang with Xu for at least the same reasons given in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9:
As discussed above Liang in view of Xu teach [the] method of claim 1, and Liang further discloses:
wherein the interaction comprises a reusable artificial intelligence (AI) workflow
Liang, p. 5, FIG. 2’s caption, “C5 workflow. (a) we first obtain the conversation history data from the ChatGPT web page and divide it into individual conversation nodes. (b) these data are processed using text embedding and topic classification. (c) the user can interactively explore conversation history through three visual components that compose our framework. Finally, (d) we achieve incremental updates through real-time integration and visualization, in order to display the latest conversation history.”
See also, p. 4, the entirety of Section 3.3 Workflow.
Liang discloses a workflow for their interactive visualization system to better explore conversations between users and ChatGPT [wherein the interaction comprises a reusable artificial intelligence (AI) workflow].
Regarding Claim 10:
As discussed above Liang in view of Xu teach [the] method of claim 1, and Liang further discloses:
wherein the chat assistant outputs a reply using a generative artificial intelligence (AI)
Liang, p. 4, col. 1, “Every node has a specific structure and content. Specifically, each node includes a user’s question and ChatGPT’s corresponding response.”
Liang discloses ChatGPT [the chat assistant…using a generative artificial intelligence] responding to users [outputs a reply].
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11 corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected for at least the same reasons as given in the rejection of claim 1, with the exception of the following limitations.
Liang discloses:
A system comprising: a memory storing a computer program for a connection engine…and at least one processor executes the computer program to cause the connection engine and the system to perform:
Liang, p. 2, “C5, an interactive conversation visualization system, clearly presents the conversation content and structure. It assists users in efficiently exploring the conversation history and provides con textual information when posing questions, thereby enhancing conversation comprehension for users and contextual continuity for ChatGPT.”
Liang discloses an interactive conversation visualization system which interacts with a user and ChatGPT, and is therefore interpreted as disclosing the claimed language of a memory, a computer program, connection engine, and a processor.
Regarding Claim 12, 14-15, and 17-20:
Claims 12, 14-15, and 17-20 correspond to claims 2, 4-5, and 7-10 and are rejected for at least the same reasons as given in the rejections of claims 2, 4-5, and 7-10. In particular, 12:2, 14:4, 15:5, 17:7, 18:8, 19:9, 20:10.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang in view of Xu as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, respectively, and further in view of AlFardan (US 20240388551), hereinafter AlFardan.
Regarding Claim 3:
As discussed above Liang in view of Xu teach [the] method of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the generative AI model comprises a large language model (LLM) gateway
However, in the same field, analogous art AlFardan teaches:
wherein the generative AI model comprises a large language model (LLM) gateway
AlFardan, [0014], “According, presented herein is an LLM firewall or gateway system that intercepts, monitors, and applies LLM-level controls on-the-fly on sessions/conversations between clients and the LLM models. The functions and capabilities are relevant to LLMs (generative AI chatbots).”
AlFardan discloses an LLM gateway (generative AI chatbot) [wherein the generative AI model comprises a large language (LLM) gateway].
Liang, Xu, AlFardan, and the instant application are analogous art because they are all directed to AI chatbots.
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 Liang and Xu with AlFardan to use an LLM gateway in in order to increase security robustness. “This system and method presented herein is a universal LLM firewall/gateway solution that can be deployed to protect clients as well as LLMs. The LLM firewall/gateway system comprises multiple blocks and modules, allowing for securely operationalizing LLMs without relying on the security controls that may or may not exist in LLM wrappers” (AlFardan, [0014]-[0015]).
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 corresponds to claim 3 and is rejected for at least the same reasons as given in the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang in view of Xu as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, respectively, and further in view of Wang et al. (“The Visual Causality Analyst: An Interactive Interface for Causal Reasoning”), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding Claim 6:
As discussed above Liang in view of Xu teach [the] method of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the connections are displayed by the graph-based interaction interface of the chat assistant as arrows
However, in the same field, analogous art Wang teaches:
wherein the connections are displayed by the graph-based interaction interface…as arrows
Wang, p. 234, col. 1, “The edges of the graph link two variables in terms of their causal relationships. The direction icon on an edge encodes the direction of the causal relation, going from cause to effect. The colors of the direction icon encode the type of the causal relation. Green arrows encode positive relations, red arrows encode negative relations, and a yellow arrow emanating from a categorical variable corresponds to multiple relations between the target and dummies of the categorical variable. If the target variable is a categorical variable, the arrow will be yellow too. The reason to use yellow arrows is that complex causal relation involving categorical variables cannot be simply described as negative or positive.”
Wang discloses using arrows to represent the edges linking two items in a graph [wherein the connections are displayed by the graph-based interaction interface…as arrows].
Liang, Xu, Wang, and the instant application are analogous art because they are all directed to graph-based displays.
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 Liang and Xu with Wang to use arrows in order to increase the robustness of the visualization interpretability. “The edges of the graph link two variables in terms of their causal relationships. The direction icon on an edge encodes the direction of the causal relation, going from cause to effect. The colors of the direction icon encode the type of the causal relation. Green arrows encode positive relations, red arrows encode negative relations, and a yellow arrow emanating from a categorical variable corresponds to multiple relations between the target and dummies of the categorical variable. If the target variable is a categorical variable, the arrow will be yellow too. The reason to use yellow arrows is that complex causal relation involving categorical variables cannot be simply described as negative or positive” (Wang, p. 234, col. 1). Wang teaches the arrows direct an interpretation of cause and effect.
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 corresponds to claim 6 and is rejected for at least the same reasons as given in the rejection of claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN PHUNG whose telephone number is (703) 756-1499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 9:00AM-4:00PM ET.
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 (571) 272-7796. 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.
/STEVEN PHUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights