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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 in regards to claim 1 has been considered and found persuasive and therefore, the 102 rejection has been withdrawn. Bases on the amendments, the closes prior arts found were Faltings et al., Rubin et al. and Dolan et al. See detailed reason for reason for allowance below. See details below.
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 in regards to claim 1 has been considered, however are not found to be persuasive. See detailed reason for rejection for claim 1 and newly added claims 2-20 below.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are directed to the abstract idea of editing and revising text using rules, examples, and comparisons, which is a fundamental mental process long performed by humans (e.g., breaking a document into sentences, consulting prior examples or style rules, choosing an instruction, rewriting a sentence, and suggesting changes based on differences). The claim recites a sequence of information, processing steps, organizing text, matching it to stored examples, selecting a prompt, generating a revised version, and comparing versions that merely manipulates linguistic content. Such activities fall within the judicial exceptions for mental processes and organizing information, as they concern the handling of text and ideas themselves rather than a technological improvement.
The claim references a “large language model (LLM)” and a “natural language processing model,” these elements are used at a high level of generality as tools to perform the same abstract text-editing workflow on a computer. The claim does not specify any particular LLM architecture, training method, data structure, or technical mechanism that improves how computers operate. Simply automating a known mental or editorial process with generic AI models does not render the abstract idea patent-eligible.
The claims also lacks an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. It recites only conventional steps: storing example texts, applying rules, aligning text, generating output, and comparing text versions, implemented using generic computing and AI components in their ordinary capacities.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. There is further no improvement to the computing device.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are further recite an abstract idea performable by a human and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as they do not provide steps other than what is conventionally known in document editing.
Claims 2 and 12: an abstract data-organization and categorization activity.
Claims 3 and 13: a generic mental process of labeling or categorizing information performed by an algorithm.
Claims 4 and 14: adds collecting user preferences and generating text based on those preferences.
Claims 5 and 15: basic forms of information input and decision making that do not add any technical significance.
Claims 6 and 16: a fundamental human interaction implemented on a computer and remains abstract.
Claims 7 and 17: merely specifies that the document is a contract.
Claims 8 and 18: does not add a technical improvement.
Claims 9 and 19: a generic NLP technique used as a tool to process text and does not provide an inventive concept.
Claims 10 and 20: a mathematical comparison of text data.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Rubin et al. (“Learning to Retrieve Prompts for In-Context Learning”) in view of Faltings et al. (“Text Editing by Command”) in view of Dolan et al. (US 2008/0103759):
Rubin et al. teach retrieving training examples as prompts for in-context learning with a large language model but Rubin does not explicitly disclose defining a rule corresponding to each original/edited text pair, nor associating such a rule with a prompt. Faltings et al. disclose sentence-level document editing using natural-language commands as prompts and generating revised sentences via a language-model-based editor, but do not teach each original/edited sentence pair as a reusable rule linked to a prompt. Dolan et al. teaches storing aligned original and edited sentence pairs in a database and using those pairs to support automated correction, but do not teach identifying or selecting prompts based on such aligned pairs for use with a large language model; accordingly, none of the references expressly teach the claimed construct in which each original/edited text pair corresponds to a rule and each such rule corresponds to a prompt used for LLM-based editing.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYANS A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm PST.
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, Pierre Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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.
SHREYANS A. PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2653
/SHREYANS A PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2659