DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are considered in this Office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 4/26/2024 and 7/14/2025 have been acknowledged.
The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copies of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 9, and 18 of the current application (Hereby known as ‘680) is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent Application No. 12,664,498 (Hereby known as ‘498). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 18, Claims 1, 9, and 18 of the current application (‘680) recites substantially similar steps of '498 – Claim 1.
Claims 1, 9, and 18 of ‘680 recites the steps of:
determining a representation of a process, wherein the representation of the process includes: a plurality of states, and one or more transitions among states of the plurality of states;
accessing a plurality of data objects, wherein each of the data objects is associated with a respective set of properties;
accessing, for each of the plurality of data objects, respective state information associated with the data objects;
determining an automation associated with at least a first state of the plurality of states; and
generating, based at least in part on the automation, a prompt for a large language model (“LLM”), wherein the prompt includes at least:
an indication of the first state, and
indications of one or more data objects, of the plurality of data objects, associated with the first state.
Whereas Claim 1 of ‘498 states:
determining a representation of a process, wherein the representation of the process includes: a plurality of states, and one or more transitions among states of the plurality of states;
accessing a plurality of data objects, wherein each of the data objects is associated with a respective set of properties;
accessing, for each of the plurality of data objects, respective state information associated with the data objects;
determining, for at least a first transition of the one or more transitions, and based on the state information associated with the plurality of data objects, a first portion of the plurality of data objects that has transitioned along the first transition;
causing generation of an interactive graphical user interface including:
a graph-based visualization of at least a portion of the plurality of states and the one or more transitions, wherein the graph-based visualization is generated based at least in part on at least a portion of the plurality of data objects and associated properties and state information, wherein the graph-based visualization includes edges between respective states that are indicative of transitions of the one or more transitions;
receiving a selection of a first state of the plurality of states; and
updating the interactive graphical user interface to cause display of a view of one or more data objects of the plurality of data objects associated with the first state.
These are obvious variants of each other as both recite substantially the same limitations. Further, elimination of an element or its functions is deemed to be obvious in light of prior art teachings of at least the recited element or its functions (see In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184, 186; 311 F2d 581 (CCPA 1963)), thereby rendering the elimination of any elements recited in the claims of the related patent (that are not recited in the instant claims) obvious.
Thus, Claims 1, 9, and 18 of the current application are obvious variants of claim 1 in ‘498.
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.
Alice – Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 12, and 18 recite the limitations of transmitting a dataset associated with an input for an artificial intelligence model to execute within the testing environment(Transmitting/Collecting Information, an Observation and Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Practice, i.e. determining a score, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), receiving a response to the dataset generated by the artificial intelligence model (Collecting Information, an Observation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Practice, i.e. determining a score, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), determining, based on the response, a score representing a quality of the response (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Practice, i.e. determining a score, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and generating an output based on the score (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an Evaluation and Judgment, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Practice, i.e. determining a score, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of generating a prompt, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a testing environment, a scoring engine, at least one transformer, system, memory subsystem, processing circuitry, and computer-readable medium, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of transmitting an analytics report of user/customer behavior, which is a Commercial Interaction, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. 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, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for a Fundamental Economic Process, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The testing environment, a scoring engine, at least one transformer, system, memory subsystem, processing circuitry, and computer-readable medium are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving and transmitting steps above are at best insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). 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. 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, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0050] The computer 306 is a desktop, laptop, or tablet computer including an input device for receiving some form of user input and an output device for outputting information in an audio and/or visual format.”
Which shows that these steps can be performed on any generic computing device which can be used to perform the abstract limitations, such as a laptop, phone, desktop, etc., and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the memory, processing circuitry, engine, etc., nor the receiving and transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with the additional element of an dashboard, signal, inference environment, generative pretrained transformer, production environment, communication service, NLP engine, and online learning are highly generalized when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 11-13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomson (U.S. Publication No. 2020/017,5962) in view of Cella (U.S. Publication No. 2025/038,4341).
Regarding Claims 1, 12, and 18, Thomson, a system and method for training speech recognition systems using word sequences, teaches a method, comprising:
receiving a response to the dataset generated by the artificial intelligence model ([0315] asr models, which are artificial intelligence, receive responses as in [0274])
determining, by the scoring engine and based on the response, a score representing a quality of the response ([0264] a score from a scorer based on the evaluated and quality of the response); and
generating, by the scoring engine, an output based on the score ([0265] an output from the scoring engine/scorer).
Although Thomson teaches transmitting, to a testing environment by a scoring engine ([0969] a testing and scoring environment with [0909] transcription scoring units), a dataset associated with an input for a learning model to execute within the testing environment, the scoring engine comprising at least one transformer ( [0614] a transformer is used with the inputting of features for an artificial intelligence model), it does not explicitly state an artificial intelligence model.
Cella, a method and system for training artificial intelligence models, teaches [01200] artificial intelligence models which are used to score responses and train the unit.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the models for scoring of Thomson with the AI models used with scoring of responses of Cella as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions in the field of artificial intelligence and chatting, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would improve the model as taught in [0277] of Cella.
Examiner notes Thomson teaches a system, memory subsystem, processing circuitry, and medium ([1728-1729] system with memory, processors and medium)
Regarding Claims 2 and 13, Thomson teaches wherein generating the output comprises:
generating a dashboard representing scores and execution metrics for multiple artificial intelligence models, including the artificial intelligence model, wherein the execution metrics comprise at least one of an execution time, a memory usage value, a processor usage value, or a network usage value ([0963] a dashboard is used to display information and operations status from the models such as the [0585] memory usage and cpu load); and transmitting the dashboard for display at a client device ([0963] this is transmitting on a client device)
Regarding Claim 5, Thomson teaches wherein the at least one transformer comprises at least one large language model ([0295] large language model)
Regarding Claim 11, Thomson teaches wherein the scoring engine is configured to evaluate output of artificial intelligence models ([0295] the output is evaluated)
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 is taught for the same reasons and rationale as in Claim 5 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6-10, 14, 16-17, and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the independent claim was amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250384341 A1
CELLA; Charles H. et al.
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR TRAINING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MODELS
US 20200175962 A1
Thomson; David et al.
TRAINING SPEECH RECOGNITION SYSTEMS USING WORD SEQUENCES
US 20250247400 A1
Verma; Rishi
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-BASED AUTOMATED EVENT LOG MAPPING
US 20250217346 A1
Black; James Paul et al.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-BASED AUTOMATED PARSER CREATION
US 20250190400 A1
Li; Zhu et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ADAPTIVE QUALITY DRIVEN COMPRESSION OF GENOMIC DATA USING NEURAL NETWORKS
US 20230334580 A1
Briancon; Alain Charles et al.
DISTRIBUTED AND REDUNDANT MACHINE LEARNING QUALITY MANAGEMENT
US 20230177441 A1
Durvasula; Sastry Vsm et al.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-BASED USE CASE MODEL RECOMMENDATION METHODS AND SYSTEMS
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 8/25/2026
Prosecution Insights