DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 5/24/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application of which Claims 1, 11, and 16 are independent and have been examined.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365 is acknowledged. The prior-filed application (Provisional application No. 63/505212 Filed on 5/31/2023, and Provisional application No. 63/520043, Filed on August 16, 2023) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s)(IDS) submitted on 6/10/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Listed claims are objected to for the informalities shown and may be addressed with suggested amendments:
Claim 8, line 5 recite: … transmit [[a]] the second query to the LLM based on the second response, …
Applicant is advised to review all claims for any potential claim objection issues.
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.
Claims 1, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
A system comprising: one or more computer-readable storage mediums having program instructions embodied therewith; and one or more processors configured to execute the program instructions to cause the system to:
[claim 11 only] A computer-implemented method comprising:
[claim 16 only] A system for updating a format of a target computer language, the system comprising: one or more computer-readable storage mediums having program instructions embodied therewith; and one or more processors configured to execute the program instructions to cause the system to:
receive, via a user interface, a natural language query;
receive an indication of a format of a first computer language and an indication of one or more computer-based tools stored in and/or accessible by the system;
transmit a prompt to a large language model (“LLM”), the prompt comprising at least: at least a portion of the natural language query, the indication of the format, and the indication of the one or more computer-based tools;
receive, from the LLM, a response to the prompt, wherein the response is in the format of the first computer language;
[claim 16 only] determine and/or receive an indication of a mistake in the first response to the prompt; and
[claim 16 only] update, based on the mistake, the format of the target computer language.
[claims 1 & 11] parse the response in the first computer language to identify at least: a computer-based tool of the one or more computer-based tools, and a first query to be provided to the computer-based tool;
[claims 1 & 11] generate, based on the parsing of the response and the identified first query, a second query in a second computer language different from the first computer language; and
[claims 1 & 11] provide the second query in the second computer language to the computer-based tool.
The claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. For example,
“receive, via a user interface, a natural language query;” in the context of this claim encompasses a person receive a request from another person, such as a manager asking from his assistant, “what is my oldest piece of equipment?”
“receive an indication of a format of a first computer language and an indication of one or more computer-based tools stored in and/or accessible by the system;” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (assistant) makes a list of available computer tools (resources) in a given format (such as an Excel sheet, word files, HR records, purchase records, tax records, etc.,)
“transmit a prompt to a large language model (“LLM”), the prompt comprising at least: at least a portion of the natural language query, the indication of the format, and the indication of the one or more computer-based tools;” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (assistant) sends a (new) prompt to an LLM: “how do I find the oldest equipment using any of these tools (list of tools, in a same format used such as excel table, etc.)
“receive, from the LLM, a response to the prompt, wherein the response is in the format of the first computer language;” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (assistant) receives reply/response from LLM: “use data in the Excel equipment database sorted by the installation date”
“[claim 16 only] determine and/or receive an indication of a mistake in the first response to the prompt; and” in the context of this claim encompasses a determination made that the response is faulty: “the received table is incorrectly arranged”
“[claim 16 only] update, based on the mistake, the format of the target computer language” in the context of this claim encompasses the mistake is corrected: the Excel table is arranged properly.
“[claims 1 & 11] parse the response in the first computer language to identify at least: a computer-based tool of the one or more computer-based tools, and a first query to be provided to the computer-based tool;” in the context of this claim encompasses assistant determine its next task (first query): write an Excel macro to sort by installation date.
“[claims 1 & 11] generate, based on the parsing of the response and the identified first query, a second query in a second computer language different from the first computer language; and” in the context of this claim encompasses assistant writes a macro in Excel (second query): the actual written macro, second language is Excel macro language.
“[claims 1 & 11] provide the second query in the second computer language to the computer-based tool.” in the context of this claim encompasses the written macro (second query) is provided to Excel (computer-based tool) and run the macro.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
one or more computer-readable storage mediums
one or more processors
computer
user interface
one or more computer-based tool(s)
large language model (“LLM”)
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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims do not add limitations that would either integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or could help the Claim as a whole to amount to significantly more than the Abstract idea identified for the Independent Claim.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
the indication of the format of the first computer language and the indication of the one or more computer-based tools stored in and/or accessible by the system are received via the user interface.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“the indication of the format of the first computer language and the indication of the one or more computer-based tools stored in and/or accessible by the system are received via the user interface.” in the context of this claim encompasses a human ensuring the data is received and distinguish a specific format of a dataset. Furthermore, a computer-based tools being stored in a storage available for retrieval is not considered as an inventive concept.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
computer-based tools
user interface
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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
an indication of a plurality of acceptable natural language terms for a computer command.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“an indication of a plurality of acceptable natural language terms for a computer command.” in the context of this claim encompasses a human ensuring that no invalid computer command was provided.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
wherein each of the plurality of acceptable natural language terms comprise a common root term each having a different spelling, a different capitalization, and/or a different punctuation from another of the plurality of acceptable natural language terms.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein each of the plurality of acceptable natural language terms comprise a common root term each having a different spelling, a different capitalization, and/or a different punctuation from another of the plurality of acceptable natural language terms.” in the context of this claim encompasses, a human can distinguish valid and acceptable natural language terms such as different spelling words, capitalization/punctuation, etc.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
wherein the indication of the format comprises an indication of a grammar of the first computer language.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the indication of the format comprises an indication of a grammar of the first computer language.” in the context of this claim encompasses, a human can distinguish proper grammar used in the response.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
parse the response in the first computer language to further identify: a second computer-based tool of the one or more computer-based tools, and a third query to be provided to the computer-based tool.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“parse the response in the first computer language to further identify: a second computer-based tool of the one or more computer-based tools, and a third query to be provided to the computer-based tool.” In the context of this claim encompasses a person can identify/distinguish the second computer tool used based on the response he received, and further he can provide a query based on the first compute-based tool.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
second computer-based tool
computer-based tool
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
generate, based on the parsing of the response and the identified third query, a fourth query in the second computer language; and provide the fourth query in the second computer language to the second computer-based tool.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“generate, based on the parsing of the response and the identified third query, a fourth query in the second computer language; and provide the fourth query in the second computer language to the second computer-based tool.” In the context of this claim encompasses a person can split/parse the response to the third query to figure out what the fourth query should be and subsequently provide the fourth query.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
transmit a second query to the LLM based on the second response, the second query configured to instruct the LLM to respond in natural language; receive from the LLM a third response comprising natural language; and generate data, based on the third response, for displaying a fourth response to the user.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“transmit a second query to the LLM based on the second response, the second query configured to instruct the LLM to respond in natural language; receive from the LLM a third response comprising natural language; and generate data, based on the third response, for displaying a fourth response to the user.” In the context of this claim encompasses a person can provide/transmit a question/query to the LLM based on a response, which would ask the LLM to provide an appropriate response. Subsequently a response is generated from the LLM to include appropriate data for the response and human can write the response on a piece of paper for demonstration to an end user.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
LLM
Display
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
determine and/or receive an indication of a mistake in the response to the prompt.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“determine and/or receive an indication of a mistake in the response to the prompt.” In the context of this claim encompasses a person looking/inspecting a response and determine that there is a mistake with the response.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
update, based on the mistake, the format of the first computer language; and generate an indication of the updated format of the first computer language.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“update, based on the mistake, the format of the first computer language; and generate an indication of the updated format of the first computer language.” In the context of this claim encompasses a person looking/inspecting a response and determine that there is a mistake with the response. Subsequently provide a correction and also show that the response is a revised (indication) version.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
wherein determining and/or receiving the indication of the mistake comprises determining that the first response to the prompt fails to include reference to a computer-based tool.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein determining and/or receiving the indication of the mistake comprises determining that the first response to the prompt fails to include reference to a computer-based tool.” In the context of this claim encompasses a person looking/inspecting a response and determine that there is a mistake with the response, and specifically does not see any refernce to the computer-based tool (i.e. what application was used to provide such response).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
computer-based tool
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
wherein the mistake comprises at least one of: a hallucination, a reference to a tool that does not exist, a reference to incorrect name of tool, a reference to a different tool than an instructed computer-based tool from the prompt, a response not conforming to the format, a response that includes an unrecognized word, or a response using a syntax different from instructed by the prompt.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the mistake comprises at least one of: a hallucination, a reference to a tool that does not exist, a reference to incorrect name of tool, a reference to a different tool than an instructed computer-based tool from the prompt, a response not conforming to the format, a response that includes an unrecognized word, or a response using a syntax different from instructed by the prompt.” In the context of this claim encompasses a person looking/inspecting a response from an LLM and determine that there is a mistake with the response (or inaccurate outputs- hallucination). Further he identifies that the format used was not allowed format, and has wrong word, or syntax that was not anticipated.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
tool
computer-based tool
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
wherein updating the format of the target computer language comprises increasing a number of acceptable terms for a computer command.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein updating the format of the target computer language comprises increasing a number of acceptable terms for a computer command.” In the context of this claim encompasses a person when updating/correcting the response, also provide other terms that could be used in the future for command purposes.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
wherein updating the format of the target computer language comprises at least one of: modifying an acceptable punctuation of one or more examples of the format of the target language, modifying an acceptable punctuation of the format of the target language, modifying an acceptable phrasing and/or ordering of terms of the format of the target language, updating an acceptable grammar of the format of the target language, or updating a list of acceptable terms for a command.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein updating the format of the target computer language comprises at least one of: modifying an acceptable punctuation of one or more examples of the format of the target language, modifying an acceptable punctuation of the format of the target language, modifying an acceptable phrasing and/or ordering of terms of the format of the target language, updating an acceptable grammar of the format of the target language, or updating a list of acceptable terms for a command.” In the context of this claim encompasses a person when updating/correcting the response, he will update/modify the punctuation, phrases used, order the terms around, update the grammar used, also provide other terms that could be used in the future for command purposes.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 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 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 1-3, 6 - 13, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy et al. (US 20240303424A1)(herein " Reddy"), and in further view of Thomas et al. (US 20240386058A1)(herein "Thomas").
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 16 Reddy [A system comprising: one or more computer-readable storage mediums having program instructions embodied therewith; and one or more processors configured to execute the program instructions to cause the system to: - claim 1], [A computer-implemented method comprising: - claim 11], and [A system for updating a format of a target computer language, the system comprising: one or more computer-readable storage mediums having program instructions embodied therewith; and one or more processors configured to execute the program instructions to cause the system to: - claim 16] (Reddy, Par. 0110:” … comprise a micro-processor and other circuitry that retrieves and executes software 1005 from storage system 1003. Processing system … include general purpose central processing units, … application specific processors, and ...”, and Par. 0111:”… any computer readable storage media readable by processing system 1002 and capable of storing software 1005. … for storage of information, such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data. … or any other suitable storage media. In no case is the computer readable storage media a propagated signal.”, and Par. 0113:” Software 1005 … may be implemented in program instructions and among other functions may, when executed by processing system 1002, ...”).
Receive/receiving, via a user interface, a natural language query; Reddy, Par. 0025:” … the user's natural language input includes text which expresses a request [query] …”).
Transmit/transmitting a prompt to a large language model ("LLM"), the prompt comprising at least: at least a portion of the natural language query and the indication of the format [and the indication of the one or more computer-based tools - claims 1, & 11]; (Reddy, Par. 0025:” … configure a prompt which contains the substance of the request [portion of the natural language query] along with a relevant portion of the spreadsheet (e.g., the column headers, row headers, and the first five rows of table data) which it submits to the LLM.”) Note: column headers, row headers, and the first five rows of table data reads on the format, and spreadsheet reads on the computer-based tool.
[claims 1 &11] Receive/receiving, from the LLM, a response to the prompt, wherein the response is in the format of the first computer language; [receive, from the LLM, a first response to the prompt in the format of the target computer language; - claim 16] (Reddy, Par. 0025:” … The LLM, upon receiving the configured prompt, generates a reply [response] which suggests adding a column [format of the target/first computer language] which computes a total sales quantity based on year-to-date (YTD) sales data along with a spreadsheet formula to calculate the quantity. Based on the reply, the application displays the suggestion along with the formula in the user interface of the spreadsheet.”)
[claims 1 &11] parse/parsing the response in the first computer language to identify at least: a computer-based tool of the one or more computer-based tools, and a first query to be provided to the computer-based tool; (Reddy, Par. 0025:” … Based on the reply [response], the application displays the suggestion along with the formula in the user interface of the spreadsheet [computer-based tool]. In an implementation, the application generates a preview of the column to be added to the data table [indication of first query] based on the suggestion, i.e., a column calculating YTD sales data based on the table data and using the formula provided in the reply of the LLM, which the user may then direct the application to implement.”)
[claims 1, & 11] generate/generating, based on the parsing of the response and the identified first query, a second query in a second computer language different from the first computer language; and (Reddy, Par. 0024:” … For example, the user may ask, “How can I get better results?” [second query which is different from the first and it is based on the first query] The application may include in its prompt to the LLM an instruction to interpret the inquiry in multiple ways and to generate suggestions based on the interpretations. The application presents the suggestions generated by the LLM to the user in the task pane.”)
[claims 1, & 11] provide/providing the second query in the second computer language to the computer-based tool. (Reddy, Par. 0024:” … The application may submit a follow-up prompt based on the user's selection of a suggestion and including in the contextual information of the prompt the selection made by the user thereby to receive a more focused reply or suggestion from the LLM. ”)
[only claim 16] determine and/or receive an indication of a mistake in the first response to the prompt; and (Reddy, Par. 0031:” … The prompt may further task the LLM with self-evaluating the suggestions according to the contextual data provided in the prompt and eliminate suggestions which are inaccurate, inappropriate, low utility, or in which the LLM has determined a low level of confidence. For example, the LLM may determine that computing a mode and a weighted mean of the data will not be as useful, based on the contextual information, as the other types of averages.”) Note: inaccuracy, inappropriateness or low utility reads on indication of mistake.
[only claim 16] update, based on the mistake, the format of the target computer language. (Reddy, 0070:” … For example, where the suggestion includes a calculated column, the instructions include adding [updating] a column at a location in the data table and entering [updating] the suggested formula in the column cells. Application 301 updates workbook data 320 to include the implementation of the suggestion and sends an update to the display to user interface 307.”)
Reddy does not teach, however Thomas teaches [Receive/receiving an indication of a format of a first computer language and an indication of one or more computer-based tools stored in and/or accessible by the system; - claims 1, &11], [receive an indication of a format of a target computer language; - claim 16] (Thomas, Par. 0017:” … receives a natural language (NL) input from a user in the context of a spreadsheet or other application environment capable of hosting data and generates a prompt based on the natural language input and a visualization of data, such as a chart associated with spreadsheet data. The application submits the prompt to a large language model (LLM) service (or “LLM”) and receives a reply from the LLM. The reply from the LLM received by the application is in a parse-able format and includes information for modifying the visualization, such as a new value for a property of the visualization. The application generates source code based on the reply from the LLM and executes the code to modify the visualization. In various implementations, applications comprising LLM integrations for data visualization include spreadsheet applications as well as non-spreadsheet applications, such as word processing applications, presentation applications, and the other productivity applications, and other applications capable of hosting tabular data and generating visualizations of the data.”)
Thomas is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Reddy further in view of Thomas to Receive an indication of a format of a first computer language and an indication of one or more computer-based tools stored in and/or accessible by the system. Motivation to do so would provide sufficient information to generate a useful response (Thomas, Par. 0031).
Regarding claims 2, and 12, Reddy, as modified above, teaches the system, and the method of claims 1, and 11 respectively.
Reddy, as modified above, further teaches [wherein the indication of the format of the first computer language and the indication of the one or more computer-based tools stored in and/or accessible by the system are received via the user interface. – claim 1], and [ wherein the at least a portion of the natural language query comprises the indication of the format of the first computer language and the indication of the one or more computer-based tools stored in and/or accessible by the system. – claim 11] (Reddy, Par. 0061:” … FIG. 3 illustrates system architecture 300 including application 301, workbook data 320, and LLM 330. Application 301, of which application service 110 is representative, includes one or more application component(s) 303, prompt engine 305, and user interface 307. Application component(s) 303 (referred to hereinafter in the singular for the sake of clarity) are representative of the various components [computer-based tools], engines, and modules of a spreadsheet application, such as computational engines, charting engines, macro engines, Visual Basic modules, formatting components, etc. Application 301 displays workbook data 320 in user interface 307 and receives user input relating to workbook data 320 from user interface 307. Prompt engine 305 of application 301 generates prompts for LLM 330 based on user input received from a user through user interface 307 and receives replies to the prompts from LLM 330.”) Note: availability of the various computer-based tools within the system architecture, implies its accessibility (stored as well).
Regarding claims 3, and 13, Reddy, as modified above, teaches the system, and the method of claims 1, and 11 respectively.
Reddy, as modified above, further teaches an indication of a plurality of acceptable natural language terms for a computer command. (Reddy, Par. 0022:” Transformer models, of which LLMs are a type, are a class of deep learning models used in natural language processing (NLP) based on a neural network architecture which use self-attention mechanisms to process input data and capture contextual relationships between words in a sentence or text passage. Transformer models weigh the importance of different words in a sequence, allowing them to … specific NLP tasks, such as text generation, language translation, or sentiment analysis.”, and Par. 0023:” … LLM integrations in a spreadsheet environment, the user-supplied natural language input includes text which expresses a general inquiry about the content of the spreadsheet, and the reply from the LLM includes a general description about the content of the spreadsheet. For example, the input may broadly request an idea or suggestion to make a data table of the spreadsheet better without reference to improving a particular aspect of the data table, such as a column, row, or format of an element of the table, and without requesting a particular type of analysis of data in the table. The LLM may reply with a summary describing the table, the information it contains, the scope of the data in the table, possible uses of the table, and so on.”) Note: importance of different words, along with the rest of the above teaching “indicate the plurality of acceptable NL terms”.
Regarding claim 6, Reddy, as modified above, teaches the system of claim 1.
Reddy, as modified above, further teaches parse the response in the first computer language to further identify: a second computer-based tool of the one or more computer-based tools, and a third query to be provided to the computer-based tool. (Reddy, Par. 0063:” To configure the prompt, prompt engine 305 identifies a prompt template according to the type of request in the input in an implementation. Prompt templates can include a prompt configuration for suggesting a calculated column to be added to workbook data 320, for a general inquiry about workbook data 320, for analyzing workbook data 320 to project a result, such as for a hypothetical scenario, and so on. Using a selected prompt template, prompt engine 305 configures a prompt to include the input or the substance of the input and contextual information from application 301, e.g., from various ones of application component 303. Contextual information may include a chat history of user inputs and replies from LLM 330 and spreadsheet data, such as table information and at least a portion of workbook data 320.”) Note: as per above each time prompt is generated, it would suggest an appropriate computer-based tool (application component 303) to be used. Therefore, each response/replay could trigger different tool to be used as appropriate.
Regarding claim 7, Reddy, as modified above, teaches the system of claim 6.
Reddy, as modified above, further teaches generate, based on the parsing of the response and the identified third query, a fourth query in the second computer language; and provide the fourth query in the second computer language to the second computer-based tool. (Reddy, Par. 0063:” To configure the prompt, prompt engine 305 identifies a prompt template according to the type of request in the input in an implementation. Prompt templates can include a prompt configuration for suggesting a calculated column to be added to workbook data 320, for a general inquiry about workbook data 320, for analyzing workbook data 320 to project a result, such as for a hypothetical scenario, and so on. Using a selected prompt template, prompt engine 305 configures a prompt to include the input or the substance of the input and contextual information from application 301, e.g., from various ones of application component 303. Contextual information may include a chat history of user inputs and replies from LLM 330 and spreadsheet data, such as table information and at least a portion of workbook data 320.”) Note: as per above each time prompt is generated, it would suggest an appropriate computer-based tool (application component 303) to be used. Therefore, each response/replay could trigger different tool to be used as appropriated. In this case, query n causes a response n to be generated, and if a subsequent query (n+1) is required for further refinement, it needs to circulate through an appropriate computer-based tool (application component 303) and if the fourth query necessitate a previously used tool, that will be chosen as required.
Regarding claim 8, Reddy, as modified above, teaches the system of claim 1.
Reddy, as modified above, further teaches transmit a second query to the LLM based on the second response, the second query configured to instruct the LLM to respond in natural language; (Reddy, Par. 0024:” … The application may submit [transmit] a follow-up prompt based on the user's selection of a suggestion and including in the contextual information of the prompt the selection made by the user thereby to receive a more focused reply or suggestion from the LLM. ”, and Par. 0020:” … The application submits the prompt to a large language model (LLM) service (or “LLM”) and receives a reply from the LLM. The application then generates a response to the user input based on the reply from the LLM.”, and Par. 0035:” … may display a formula suggested by the LLM with a natural language explanation of the formula.”, and Par. 0060:” Application service 110 receives the reply from LLM service 120 and generates a response to the user's input based on the reply. The response to the input is displayed by application service 110 in the user interface of the application, such as in task pane 142 or chat interface. The response may include the reply or the suggestions within the reply presented in a natural language format.”, and Par. 0066:” … the output format of the reply to produce a reply in a parse-able format, instructions or tasks, examples including sample data or sample data formatting, …”).
receive from the LLM a third response comprising natural language; and (Reddy, Par. 0060:” Application service 110 receives the reply from LLM service 120 and generates a response to the user's input based on the reply. … The response may include the reply or the suggestions within the reply presented in a natural language format.”)
generate data, based on the third response, for displaying a fourth response to the user. (Reddy, Par. 0025:” … The LLM, upon receiving the configured prompt, generates a reply which suggests adding a column which computes a total sales quantity [data] based on year-to-date (YTD) sales data along with a spreadsheet formula to calculate the quantity [data]. Based on the reply, the application displays the suggestion along with the formula in the user interface of the spreadsheet [data]. In an implementation, the application generates a preview of the column to be added to the data table based on the suggestion, i.e., a column calculating YTD sales data based on the table data and using the formula provided in the reply of the LLM, which the user may then direct the application to implement.”, and Par. 0083:” … Prompt engine 305 processes the reply, including extracting the natural language explanation enclosed in the appropriate tags, and generates a response for display by user interface 307 in task pane 503.”, and Par. 0086:” … Application components 303 transmit an instruction to user interface 307 to update the display of data table 502 accordingly.”)
Regarding claim 9, Reddy, as modified above, teaches the system of claim 1.
Reddy, as modified above, further teaches determine and/or receive an indication of a mistake in the response to the prompt. (Reddy, Par. 0031:” … The prompt may further task the LLM with self-evaluating the suggestions according to the contextual data provided in the prompt and eliminate suggestions which are inaccurate, inappropriate, low utility, or in which the LLM has determined a low level of confidence. For example, the LLM may determine that computing a mode and a weighted mean of the data will not be as useful, based on the contextual information, as the other types of averages.”) Note: inaccuracy, inappropriateness or low utility reads on indication of mistake.
Regarding claim 10, Reddy, as modified above, teaches the system of claim 9.
Reddy, as modified above, further teaches update, based on the mistake, the format of the first computer language; and (Reddy, 0070:” … For example, where the suggestion includes a calculated column, the instructions include adding [updating] a column at a location in the data table and entering [updating] the suggested formula in the column cells. Application 301 updates workbook data 320 to include the implementation of the suggestion and sends an update to the display to user interface 307.”)
generate an indication of the updated format of the first computer language. (Reddy, 0070:” … For example, where the suggestion includes a calculated column, the instructions include adding [updating] a column at a location in the data table and entering [updating] the suggested formula in the column cells. Application 301 updates workbook data 320 to include the implementation of the suggestion and sends [indication] an update to the display to user interface 307.”)
Regarding claim 18, Reddy, as modified above, teaches the system of claim 16.
Reddy, as modified above, further teaches wherein the mistake comprises at least one of: a hallucination, a reference to a tool that does not exist, a reference to incorrect name of tool, a reference to a different tool than an instructed computer-based tool from the prompt, a response not conforming to the format, a response that includes an unrecognized word, or a response using a syntax different from instructed by the prompt. (Reddy, Par. 0005:” … LLMs are known to hallucinate—that is, to imagine information which does not actually exist. Moreover, given the diverse subject matter in the training data used to train LLMs, LLMs may generate a response to an inquiry which diverges so far from what the user is asking that the response ends up being useless [mistake].”)
Claims 4, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy, and Thomas, and in further view of Kovarik et al. (US 20220075962 A1)(herein "Kovarik").
Regarding claims 4, 14 Reddy, as modified above, teaches the system, and the method of claims 1, and 11 respectively.
Reddy, as modified above, does not teach, however, Kovarik teaches wherein the indication of the format comprises an indication of a grammar of the first computer language. (Kovarik, Par. 0045:” … For example, patent claim language may have a different format that natural language prose, use different words than natural language prose, may include different punctuation and the like.”)
Kovarik is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Reddy, as modified above, further in view of Kovarik to wherein the indication of the format comprises an indication of a grammar of the first computer language. Motivation to do so would provide literal support for the input text in the output text (Kovarik, Par. 0055).
Claims 5, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy, and Thomas, and in further view of Verma et al. (US 20180349377 A1)(herein " Verma ").
Regarding claims 5, 15 Reddy, as modified above, teaches the system, and the method of claims 1, and 11 respectively.
Reddy, as modified above, does not teach, however, Verma teaches wherein the indication of the format comprises an indication of a grammar of the first computer language. (Verma, Par. 0015:” … processing of an input query in a natural language format (e.g., natural language input) by utilizing, at least in part, machine learning models in conjunction with context-free grammars to generate a structured query for providing an answer to the input query.”, and Par. 0047:” To convert a given natural language input so a structured query format, the CFG component 230 utilizes context-free grammar techniques for determining an attribute corresponding to an entity from the natural language input, which can correspond to a given candidate entity that is determined from the entity scorer 220 as discussed above.”)
Verma is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Reddy, as modified above, further in view of Verma to wherein the indication of the format comprises an indication of a grammar of the first computer language. Motivation to do so would improve accuracy based on the support status of external libraries (Verma, Par. 0126).
Claim 17, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy, and Thomas, and in further view of Yan et al. (US 8443207 B2)(herein " Yan ").
Regarding claim 17 Reddy, as modified above, teaches the system of claim 16.
Reddy, as modified above, does not teach, however, Yan teaches wherein determining and/or receiving the indication of the mistake comprises determining that the first response to the prompt fails to include reference to a computer-based tool. (Yan, claim 10:” … returning an error to the software entity in response to the software entity response failing to match the file system filter response.”)
Yan is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Reddy, as modified above, further in view of Yan to wherein determining and/or receiving the indication of the mistake comprises determining that the first response to the prompt fails to include reference to a computer-based tool. Motivation to do so would provide access to first content on the secure removable memory device if the software entity response matches the file system (Yan, Col. 2, ll. 4-6).
Claim 19, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy, and Thomas, and in further view of Timothy Seung Yoon Paek (US20100131275A1)(herein "Paek ").
Regarding claim 19 Reddy, as modified above, teaches the system of claim 16.
Reddy, as modified above, does not teach, however, Paek teaches wherein updating the format of the target computer language comprises increasing a number of acceptable terms for a computer command. (Paek, Par. 0021:” … One way to make it more natural is to increase the number of acceptable words and/or permitted phrases. Increasing the overall size of the grammar can also increase the power of the grammar-based speech application.”)
Paek is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Reddy, as modified above, further in view of Paek to wherein updating the format of the target computer language comprises increasing a number of acceptable terms for a computer command. Motivation to do so would provide a more natural feel to the grammar-based language (Paek, Par. 0037).
Claim 20, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy, and Thomas, and in further view of Kang et al. (US 20060100856A1)(herein "Kang").
Regarding claim 20 Reddy, as modified above, teaches the system of claim 16.
Reddy, as modified above, does not teach, however, Kang teaches wherein updating the format of the target computer language comprises at least one of: modifying an acceptable punctuation of one or more examples of the format of the target language, modifying an acceptable punctuation of the format of the target language, modifying an acceptable phrasing and/or ordering of terms of the format of the target language, updating an acceptable grammar of the format of the target language, or updating a list of acceptable terms for a command. (Kang, Par. 0075:” … according to the dictionary updating method of the present invention, a registered [acceptable] word having a higher user's usage frequency, appearance frequency, and changed appearance frequency value among registered words is re-registered in the second dictionary and in order to recognize a user's voice command, a registered word registered in the second dictionary is first retrieved such that the user voice command can be recognized more accurately.”)
Kang is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Reddy, as modified above, further in view of Kang to wherein updating the format of the target computer language comprises at least one of: modifying an acceptable punctuation of one or more examples of the format of the target language, modifying an acceptable punctuation of the format of the target language, modifying an acceptable phrasing and/or ordering of terms of the format of the target language, updating an acceptable grammar of the format of the target language, or updating a list of acceptable terms for a command. Motivation to do so would process unregistered words such as the individual names and coined words (Kang, Par. 0006).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Johnson Hao Wen Kuan (US20240362409A1) teaches in Par. 0030:” The large language model may utilize the text prompt to generate code (e.g., SQL code, Python code, and so forth) used to extract a relevant dataset from within the database and to analyze or format the extracted dataset. The dataset may then be input into a prompt generation engine and the resultant prompt input into the large language model to generate natural language insight descriptions that are descriptive of insights contained in the dataset. The dataset may further be processed by a chart generation system to create a visual representation of the insights.”
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to 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 case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIOUSH AGAHI whose telephone number is (408)918-7689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on 571-272-7453. 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.
DARIOUSH AGAHI, P.E.
Primary Examiner
/DARIOUSH AGAHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656