DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 02/12/2026 for application 18/656,775. Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 10, 12, 14-15, 19, 21 and 23-24 have been amended. Claims 2, 11, 20 and 28-37 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3-10, 12-19 and 21-27 are pending in this application.
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
In view of the applicant amendment filed on 02/12/2026 previous rejections 35 USC § 103 have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In view of applicant specification it is not clear if system include definitive hardware or physical components. Applicant is suggested to insert – “memory and processor” in the claims to obviate this rejection.
Claims 4-9 are also rejected under 35 U.S. C 101 because they fail to resolve the deficiencies of claim 1.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: ”a query evaluator”, “a query generator”, “a large language model”, “a response controller”, in claims 1, 3 and 4-9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the combination of elements recited in independent claims 10, 12, 19, & 21.
Regarding independent claims 10, 12, 19, & 21, none of the cited arts in combination disclose or suggest at least the “providing a database library; training or programming a query evaluator to be capable of determining whether an input question can be answered using a database query; training or programming a query generator to be capable of identifying at least one database in the database library are relevant to answering the input question, and generating a query to answer same; and training a large language model to be capable of receiving a query output from the query generator, the query output comprising at least one database schema for at least one identified database and at least one query; and training or programming a response controller to be capable of identifying errors in a proposed response from the large language model and sending same to the query generator to generate a revised query (claim 10)”, “providing a database library; training or programming a query evaluator to be capable of determining whether an input question can be answered using a database query; training or programming a query generator to be capable of identifying at least one database in the database library are relevant to answering the input question, and generating a query to answer same; and training a large language model to be capable of receiving a query output from the query generator, the query output comprising at least one database schema for at least one identified database and at least one query; and training or programming a response controller to be capable of identifying errors in a proposed response from the large language model and sending same to the large language model to use the error information to process a revised proposed response (claim 12)”, “providing database library; presenting a question to the query evaluator, such that the query evaluator can determine whether the question can be answered by running a database query; when the question presented can be answered by running a database query, providing the question to a query generator, to process the question and to (i) identify at least one database in the database library that can be queried to answer the question, and (ii) generate a query output; providing the query output to a large language model trained to receive and process the query output and to generate a proposed response to the question using results from running a query in the query output; and providing the proposed response from the large language model to a response controller that evaluates whether the proposed response has errors, and when the proposed response has errors sends the error to the query generator to be used to generate a revised query output (claim 19)” and “providing database library; presenting a question to the query evaluator, such that the query evaluator can determine whether the question can be answered by running a database query; when the question presented can be answered by running a database query, providing the question to a query generator, to process the question and to (i) identify at least one database in the database library that can be queried to answer the question, and (ii) generate a query output; providing the query output to a large language model trained to receive and process the query output and to generate a proposed response to the question using results from running a query in the query output; and providing the proposed response from the large language model to a response controller that evaluates whether the proposed response has errors, and when the proposed response has errors sends the error to the large language model to be used to generate a revised proposed response (claim 21)”, in combination with all the other limitations in the independent claims 10, 12, 19, & 21. The scope of the independent claim is allowable because the complete scope of the claims is not found to be taught in the prior art. These features together with other limitations of the independent claims are novel and non- obvious over the prior art of record. The dependent claims being definite, enabled by the specification, and further limiting to the independent claims are also allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Mohammad A Sana whose telephone number is (571)270-1753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at 5712724098. 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.
/Mohammad A Sana/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights