DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/15/26 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “the computing system configured to”, “a data ingestor”, and “a chunking module, a scoring module, a labelling module, a retriever module” in claims 1, 4 and 9, respectively.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites "the processor" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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. Independent claim 1, 11 20 similarly recite obtain a plurality of chunks in an initial order corresponding to portions of text from each document in a set of documents, wherein the plurality of chunks is represented as a plurality of embeddings; compute a score for each one of the plurality of chunks in relation to a vector representation of a query; generate a reordered set of chunks that is ordered from a highest score associated with a first given chunk in the reordered set of chunks to a lowest score associated with a last given chunk in the reordered set of chunks; generate a sum of n number of highest scores from the reordered set of chunks, wherein the sum is at least equal to a threshold, and produce a subset of chunks that are associated with the n number of highest scores; identify one or more documents, which are associated with the subset of chunks, as relevant to the query, wherein the one or more documents are a subset of the set of documents, wherein the subset of chunks corresponds to a multi-label conformalized prediction set; retrieve the one or more documents and ignore a remaining set documents of the set of documents; and, generate an expanded prompt using the one or more documents that have been retrieved, and input the expanded prompt into a generator large language model (LLM) to generate and output a response to the query that comprises text from the one or more documents.
The limitations of obtain a plurality of chunks in an initial order corresponding to portions of text from each document in a set of documents, wherein the plurality of chunks is represented as a plurality of embeddings; compute a score for each one of the plurality of chunks in relation to a vector representation of a query; generate a reordered set of chunks that is ordered from a highest score associated with a first given chunk in the reordered set of chunks to a lowest score associated with a last given chunk in the reordered set of chunks; generate a sum of n number of highest scores from the reordered set of chunks, wherein the sum is at least equal to a threshold, and produce a subset of chunks that are associated with the n number of highest scores; identify one or more documents, which are associated with the subset of chunks, as relevant to the query, wherein the one or more documents are a subset of the set of documents, wherein the subset of chunks corresponds to a multi-label conformalized prediction set; and, generate an expanded prompt using the one or more documents that have been retrieved, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes but from the recitation of implementing them on generic computer components. That is, but for the language pertaining to each of the modules, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language pertaining to each of the modules, the limitations pertaining to “obtain”, “compute”, “generate”, “generate”, “identify”, and “generate” in the context of this claim encompass the user analyzing documents and judging chunks or portions of text from the documents, judging a score for each of the chunks, judging a reordered set of chunks from a highest score, judge a sum of highest scores to produce a subset of chunks, judging one or more documents as relevant to the query and judging an expanded prompt. 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. Further, the “compute” or “generate” limitations appear to also be directed to a mathematical calculation. Therefore, they also would fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” groups of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1, 11, 20 recite multiple abstract ideas (Step 2A, Prong 1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of – a Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) computing system for retrieving documents, the RAG computing system configured to at least:; a method for retrieving documents, the method executed in a Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) computing environment, and the method comprising:; a non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer executable instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of a Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) computing system, cause the RAG computing system to carry out a method for retrieving documents, the method comprising; retrieve the one or more documents and ignore a remaining set documents of the set of documents; and input the expanded prompt into a generator large language model (LLM) to generate and output a response to the query that comprises text from the one or more documents. The RAG computing system, RAG computing environment, non-transitory computer readable medium, processors, and generator LLM are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The additional elements pertaining to “retrieving the one or more documents”, “input the expanded prompt” and “output” represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. These limitations are recited as being performed using generic computing components at a high level of generality. In these limitations, computing components are used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of (input and output query response). See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the claim is silent with regard to how the generator LLM actually generates and outputs the response from inputting of the expanded prompt into the generator LLM, and rather, merely recites the generic outcome of inputting the expanded prompt into the generator LLM. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2).
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 represent insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry and recites the use of generic computing components. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the fields of query processing, data storage/retrieval, and/or artificial intelligence and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) and/or storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and/or receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these limitations, both individually and in combination, fail to amount to an inventive concept because they merely append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, and thus, do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B). Accordingly, claim 1, 11, 20 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10, 12-19 depend on claims 1, 11 and include all the limitations of these claims. Therefore, these claims are directed to the same abstract idea and the analysis must proceed to (Step 2A, Prong 2).
Claims 2, 12 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to the multiple documents. The limitation pertaining to the association and identifying of the multiple documents is directed to the abstract idea of analyzing documents and judging them to be relevant to the query. The additional limitation pertaining to retrieving documents does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represents an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. 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 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 element pertaining to retrieving documents represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, this limitation represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 3, 13 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to storing the subset of chunks, scores in association with documents. This additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represents an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. 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 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, this additional element represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, this limitation represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 4, 14 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to a data ingestor that obtains. These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The claim also recites additional generic computing components performing generic computing activities. 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 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 represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). The claim also recites additional generic computing components performing generic computing activities. Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 5, 15 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to generating the sum. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mathematical concepts (mathematical calculations and/or relationships). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical calculations and/or relationships, then it falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 additional elements represent further mathematical steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 5, 15 are not patent eligible.
Claims 6, 16 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to the the expanded prompt. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent a further limitation pertaining to the mental process steps of generating an expanded prompt and does not preclude this limitation from being performed mentally. 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. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 additional elements represent further mental process steps or mathematical concepts. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 6, 16 are not patent eligible.
Claims 7-8, 17-18 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to computing the score. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent the mental process steps or mathematical calculations of computing the score as in the independent claims. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” or “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step and/or mathematical concept) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 additional elements represent further mental process steps or mathematical concepts. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 7-8, 17-18 are not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites additional limitations pertaining the processor executing a pipeline and what the pipeline comprises. These pipeline and modules are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As aforementioned, the pipeline and modules are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 10, 19 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to produce and store. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of producing (judge) embeddings. 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. Further, the limitations pertaining to the vector database and embeddings LLM are recited as being performed using generic computing components at a high level of generality. These limitations use computing components as a tool to perform the generic computer function of (producing and storing). See MPEP 2106.05(f). In the limitation pertaining to “produces”, the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The judicial exception of “produces” is performed using the “embeddings LLM”. That is, the embeddings LLM is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the embeddings LLM functions to accomplish this task. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “produces a plurality of embeddings” and do not include any details about how the producing is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of using the “embeddings LLM” in the limitations also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element using the “embeddings LLM” limits the identified judicial exceptions, “produces”, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (large language models) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 additional elements represent further mental process steps. The additional element of using the “embeddings LLM” is at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additional element “the vector database stores” was also found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because it is determined to be an insignificant limitation as necessary data gathering and outputting. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 10, 19 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to the amendment filed on 04/15/26.
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pgs. 8-10, applicant argues that the steps cannot be performed mentally and that the specification makes clear that this is not a product of mere human judgment or a simple mathematical calculation but rather is specific to improving a RAG computing system that processes data that is represented as embeddings and vectors which are only machine readable by a RAG computing system.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the claim does recite multiple abstract ideas, and that, the RAG computing system recites generic computing components performing generic computing functions which does not provide any improvement to the functioning of the computer or related technology. The claims, in light of the specification, do not suggest that the data is not understandable to a human mind. Rather, under its broadest reasonable interpretation as claimed, humans can interpret (and judge) chunks represented as embeddings and computing a score for chunks in relation to a vector representation as a mental process.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 10, applicant argues that such multi-step statistical computations, performed at a scale of data inherent to modern document retrieval and RAG systems cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the claim only recites “wherein the subset of chunks corresponds to a multi-label conformalized prediction set”. This does not imply any sort of specific data structure or even storage means. The claim is silent with regard to any sort of statistical calculations as mentioned by the applicant, and, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification. Please see MPEP 2111.01(II).
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 10, applicant argues that the generator LLM, which is a neural network, is inherently rooted in the computing system and cannot be performed in the human mind.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that, as aforementioned, the claim is silent with regard to a neural network as mentioned by the applicant, and, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification. Further, the examiner has not stated that the generator LLM is a mental process itself. The examiner also has not stated that the claim as a whole is directed to a mental process, as is suggested.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 10-11, applicant argues that the invention overcome this technical problem by implementing a specific improved RAG computing system for document retrieval by processing the data into vectors and embeddings and, using a multi-label conformalized prediction set, the RAG computing system determines subset of chunks to retrieve for a given query which is a direct improvement to the computer itself.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the portion that recites “multi-label conformalized prediction set” was already addressed by the examiner in response to a previous argument. Further, as also aforementioned, under its broadest reasonable interpretation as claimed, humans can interpret (and judge) chunks represented as embeddings, computing a score for chunks in relation to a vector representation, and determining of subsets of chunks as mental process steps. Therefore, these would not provide any sort of improvements to the computer itself or to related technology. That is, “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology” (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 11, applicant argues that the claimed subject matter specifies a transformation which is used to provide the improved relevant context to the generator LLM, thereby improving its performance and efficiency.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the generating of an expanded prompt is directed to a mental process step encompassing a judgment. Further, the inputting of the expanded prompt into the generator LLM is an insignificant extra-solution activity that represent the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pgs. 11-12, applicant argues that the specific process of the RAG computer system reduces computation burden and improves system accuracy, and, that is a specific technological improvement to the field of machine learning and RAG computing systems.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the claim recites multiple abstract ideas and additional limitations that are well-understood, routine, and conventionally known as addressed specifically in the rejection and in response to previous arguments. Therefore, they do not provide any sort of improvements to the functioning of the computer or relevant technology.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 12, applicant mentions McRO and emboldens “or improves another technology or technical field”.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the examiner’s responses to previous arguments would also apply here.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P BARTLETT whose telephone number is (469)295-9085. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 11:30-8:30, F 11-3.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sherief Badawi can be reached on 571-272-9782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/WILLIAM P BARTLETT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights