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 .
This action is responsive to the application filed April 01, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and are presenting for examination.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claims 3, 10, and 17, recites to include the following limitation, “the compilable computer code is in a format that is at least partially proprietary” should be changed to, for example, --the compilable computer code is in a format being at least partially proprietary.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite:
A method comprising:
[a] receiving first natural language text describing compilable computer code to be generated;
[b] generating an initial prompt by adding an initial system message to the first natural language text, the system message including an instruction to generate computer code in an intermediate representation;
[c] passing the initial prompt to a large language model (LLM);
[d] receiving, from the LLM, a generated initial intermediate representation;
[e] storing the generated initial intermediate representation in a cache;
[f] passing the generated initial intermediate representation to a programmatic component, which validates the generated intermediate representation and converts the generated intermediate representation into an initial final representation, the initial final representation being compilable computer code;
[g] receiving second natural language text requesting a refinement to the initial final representation;
[h] generating a subsequent prompt by adding a subsequent iteration system message to the second natural language text and the generated initial intermediate representation from the cache;
[i] passing the subsequent prompt to the LLM; and
[j] receiving, from the LLM, a generated refined initial intermediate representation.
Step 2A – prong 1:
The claims recite the limitation of:
A method comprising:
[b] generating an initial prompt by adding an initial system message to the first natural language text, the system message including an instruction to generate computer code in an intermediate representation;
[h] generating a subsequent prompt by adding a subsequent iteration system message to the second natural language text and the generated initial intermediate representation from the cache.
These limitations of steps [b] and [h] as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Step 2A – Prong 2:
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements “A system comprising: at least one hardware processor; and a computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations”, “A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations”, “from the LLM”, “a programmatic component, which validates the generated intermediate representation and converts the generated intermediate representation into an initial final representation, the initial final representation being compilable computer code”, and steps [a], [c]-[e], partially step [f] “passing the generated initial intermediate representation”, [g], [i], and [j].
The additional elements “A system comprising: at least one hardware processor; and a computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations”, “A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations”, “from the LLM”, and “a programmatic component, which validates the generated intermediate representation and converts the generated intermediate representation into an initial final representation, the initial final representation being compilable computer code” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, and the limitation of steps: [a], [c]-[e], partially step [f] “passing the generated initial intermediate representation”, [g], [i], and [j] do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do 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 additional elements of “A system comprising: at least one hardware processor; and a computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations”, “A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations”, “from the LLM”, and “a programmatic component, which validates the generated intermediate representation and converts the generated intermediate representation into an initial final representation, the initial final representation being compilable computer code” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, and for the limitation of steps: [a], [c]-[e], partially step [f] “passing the generated initial intermediate representation”, [g], [i], and [j], the courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering, storing, and transmitting do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding to per claims 2, 9, and 16, recites the limitation, “wherein the initial prompt comprises a mapping between fields of a first format for intermediate representations and fields of a second format for final representations, and wherein the generating the subsequent prompt comprises generating the subsequent prompt by adding the subsequent iteration system message to the second natural language text, the generated initial intermediate representation from the cache, and the mapping” recites further mental processes. The additional elements of “The system” and “The non-transitory machine-readable medium” are merely the use of a computer/instructions running on the computer to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B.
Regarding to per claims 3, 10, and 17, recites the limitation, “wherein the compilable computer code is in a format that is at least partially proprietary” is further define data which is nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts of identified the data gathering, the results of the judicial exception, is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional elements of “The system” and “The non-transitory machine-readable medium” are merely the use of a computer/instructions running on the computer to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B.
Regarding to per claims 4, 11, and 18, recites the limitation, “wherein the compilable computer code is a Core Data Services (CDS) model” is further define data which is nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts of identified the data gathering, the results of the judicial exception, is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional elements of “The system” and “The non-transitory machine-readable medium” are merely the use of a computer/instructions running on the computer to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B.
Regarding to per claims 5, 12, and 19, recites the limitation, “wherein the intermediate representation is not compilable” is further define data which is nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts of identified the data gathering, the results of the judicial exception, is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional elements of “The system” and “The non-transitory machine-readable medium” are merely the use of a computer/instructions running on the computer to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B.
Regarding to per claims 6, 13, and 20, recites the limitation, “wherein the intermediate representation is a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) file” is further define data which is nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts of identified the data gathering, the results of the judicial exception, is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional elements of “The system” and “The non-transitory machine-readable medium” are merely the use of a computer/instructions running on the computer to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B.
Regarding to per claims 7 and 14, recites the limitation,” wherein the programmatic component automatically corrects one or more errors in the intermediate representation” and the additional elements of “The system” and “The non-transitory machine-readable medium” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. The prior arts of record or made of record, taken alone or in combination do not disclose and/or suggest, and/or motivation to combine, “passing the initial prompt to a large language model (LLM); receiving, from the LLM, a generated initial intermediate representation; storing the generated initial intermediate representation in a cache; passing the generated initial intermediate representation to a programmatic component, which validates the generated intermediate representation and converts the generated intermediate representation into an initial final representation, the initial final representation being compilable computer code; receiving second natural language text requesting a refinement to the initial final representation; generating a subsequent prompt by adding a subsequent iteration system message to the second natural language text and the generated initial intermediate representation from the cache; passing the subsequent prompt to the LLM; and receiving, from the LLM, a generated refined initial intermediate representation” as limitations recited in as such manners as in independent claims.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon (cited on 892 form) is considered pertinent to application disclosure.
Ouyang (US-20250238638-A1) discloses modifying prompts using a generative language model.
Hayes (US-20250045531-A1) discloses providing a generative artificial intelligence (AI) framework with multiple interconnected large language models (LLM) to prevent hallucinations, jailbreaking, and harmful generated content in generative AI system.
Zafar et al. (US-11816474-B1) disclose generating dynamically updated metadata using real-time artificial intelligence models.
Kunz (US-11308179-B2) discloses provide for core data service model-based webpage generation that occurs at compile time.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARINA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8 am to 4: 30 pm 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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached on (571)-272-6799. 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.
/MARINA LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights