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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This response is for Application filed on 5/28/2024. Claims 1-17 are examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IN202341037509, filed on 5/31/2023.
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 1-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. For an apparatus claim to be statutory, the claimed system/method must include at least one component that is necessarily a computer hardware component. [0019] of the Specification recites “As used in this application, the terms ‘component,’ ‘system (100) (101),’ ‘module,’ ‘interface,’ are intended to refer to a computer-related entity or an entity related to…wherein such entities can be either hardware, a combination of hardware and software, software, or software in execution.” Therefore, the claimed invention is directed to software per se.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If itis determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant is advised to consult the 2019 PEG for more details of the analysis.
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Claims 1-9 are drawn to an apparatus and claim 10-17 is drawn to a method, therefore each of these claim groups falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of matter; Step 1). Nonetheless, the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significant more (Step 2A, see below). Independent claims 1 and 10 are non-verbatim but similar in claim construction, hence share the same rationale that the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows:
As to claim 1:
Claim 1 recites “A system to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM), the LLM being configured to process an input and give an output, the LLM being deployed in a LLM module further comprising an input filter and at least an output filter, the system comprising: a moderation module configured to receive the input and generate at least one moderation output; a second large language model (LLM’), the LLM’ being configured to: receive the input and the moderation output; process the input and the moderation output to get a response; communicate the response with at least one of the input filter and the output filter to prevent misuse of the LLM; and a memory module configured to store the processed responses of the LLM’.”
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “…process the input and the moderation output to get a response” and “…communicate the response with at least one of the input filter and the output filter...” are the abstract ideas of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this element is interpreted as forming a response after mentally processing what is seen or read, which is a mental process of judgement; hence this is an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “…LLM module further comprising an input filter and at least an output filter” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “…LLM being deployed in a LLM module”, “a moderation module configured to receive the input and generate at least one moderation output”, “a second large language model (LLM’)”, and “receive the input and the moderation output” are additional elements that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, the limitation “…memory module configured to store the processed responses of the LLM’” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it”, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the element is directed to storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
No, the limitation “…LLM module further comprising an input filter and at least an output filter”, “a second large language model (LLM’)”, and “…communicate the response with at least one of the input filter and the output filter…” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification being silent, filters block certain input and output and does not add any significance to the module but equivalent to adding the words “apply it.” See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “…LLM being deployed in a LLM module”, “a moderation module configured to receive the input and generate at least one moderation output” and “receive the input and the moderation output” are additional elements that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, the LLM being deployed in a LLM module is interpreted as a software being deployed in a software system; hence this element is insignificant as there is no further functionality as to what makes the LLM being deployed in a LLM module significant. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, the limitation “a memory module configured to store the processed responses…” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, memory module is interpreted as memory performing their well-understood functionality which is to store any form of data; hence the element is adding insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as "significantly more".
Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-9, 11-17 also mentions elements that when considered individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to claim 2:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, this claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “…the system is deployed in parallel to the LLM module” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “…the system is deployed in parallel to the LLM module” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. As mentioned previously, having the system run parallel to the module is insignificant since the system is performing an existing process in their ordinary capacity which is running concurrently with the module. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
As to claim 3:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, this claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “…identify at least one restricted attribute in the input” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Identify is a mental judgement to determine what is a restricted attribute. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “…a plurality of moderation models” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “…moderation models” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The models were never mentioned prior to this claim; hence this application is merely an “apply-it” implementation. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
As to claim 4:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, this claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “…identification of at least one restricted attribute” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, identification of one restricted attribute is judging what qualifies as restricted and what is not; hence this interpretation is an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 5:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, this claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “…configured to transform the input to text and generate a question prompt as the moderation output” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this is interpreted as translating a thought into a question, which is a mental process or a process that can also be done with pen and paper; hence this element is an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 6:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, this claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “…a reasoning response and a classification response.” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “…a reasoning response and a classification response.” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. There is no explicit significance in adding a reason and category for responses in the claim language; hence the element is adding insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
As to claim 7:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, this claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “…input is blocked by input filter based on communication received from the LLM’” is a post-solution step of further filtering data which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “input is blocked by input filter based on communication received from the LLM’” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. As discussed above this is insignificant as the filter’s function is to block the input or filter, having a separate claim is excessive/insignificant. Along with that, communication received from the LLM’ lacks functionality; hence the elements presented is insignificant. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As to claim 8:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, this claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “…output filter modifies or blocks the output generated by the LLM based on communication received from the LLM’” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “…output filter modifies or blocks the output generated by the LLM based on communication received from the LLM’” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. As discussed above this is insignificant as the filter’s function is to block the output and having the option to modify output adds no significance and communication lacks functionality, having a separate claim is excessive/insignificant. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As to claim 9:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, this claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “…input filter and the output filter are updated based on responses stored in the memory module” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, updating responses of the filters can be determined as changing your judgement on specific ideas that you mentally processed previously. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 10:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, this claim is to a process.
A method to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM), the LLM being configured to process an input and give an output, the LLM being deployed in a LLM module further comprising an input filter and at least an output filter, the method comprising: generating at least one moderation output by way of a moderation module; transmitting the input and the moderation output to a second large foundation model (LLM’); processing the input and the moderation output by way of the LLM’ to get a response; communicating the response with at least one of the input filter and the output filter to prevent misuse of the LLM; and storing the processed responses in a memory module.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “…processing the input and the moderation output by way of the LLM’ to get a response” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this element is interpreted as forming a response after mentally processing what is seen or read, which is a mental process of judgement; hence this is an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “…LLM module further comprising an input filter and at least an output filter” and “…communicate the response with at least one of the input filter and the output filter...” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “…LLM being deployed in a LLM module”, “generating at least one moderation output by way of a moderation module”, “transmitting the input and the moderation output to a second large foundation model (LLM’)”, and “receive the input and the moderation output” are additional elements that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, the limitation “…storing the processed responses in a memory module” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it”, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the element is directed to storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
No, the limitation “…LLM module further comprising an input filter and at least an output filter” and “…communicate the response with at least one of the input filter and the output filter...” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification being silent, filters block certain input and output and does not add any significance to the module but equivalent to adding the words “apply it.” See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “…LLM being deployed in a LLM module”, “generating at least one moderation output by way of a moderation module”, “transmitting the input and the moderation output to a second large foundation model (LLM’)”, and “receive the input and the moderation output” are additional elements that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, the LLM being deployed in a LLM module is interpreted as a software being deployed in a software system; hence this element is insignificant as there is no further functionality as to what makes the LLM being deployed in a LLM module significant. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, the limitation “…storing the processed responses in a memory module is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, memory module is interpreted as memory performing their well-understood functionality which is to store any form of data; hence the element is adding insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As to claim 11:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, this claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “…identify at least one restricted attribute in the input” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Identify is a mental judgement to determine what is a restricted attribute. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “…a plurality of moderation models” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “…moderation models” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The models were never mentioned prior to this claim; hence this application is merely an “apply-it” implementation. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
As to claim 12:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, this claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “…identification of at least one restricted attribute” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, identification of one restricted attribute is judging what qualifies as restricted and what is not; hence this interpretation is an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 13:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, this claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “…configured to transform the input to text and generate a question prompt as the moderation output” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this is interpreted as translating a thought into a question, which is a mental process or a process that can also be done with pen and paper; hence this element is an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 14:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, this claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “processed responses” is a continuation of the “process the input and the moderation output to get a response” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “a reasoning response and a classification response.” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 15:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, this claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “…communicating the response further comprises blocking the input prompt by way of the input filter” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Under the element’s broadest reasonable interpretation, the LLM is determining if a response is good or not, which is making a mental judgement as to whether a response is valid; hence this mental process makes the element an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 16:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, this claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “…communicating the response further comprises blocking or modifying the output generated by the LLM by way of the output filter” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). As mention in previous claim, under the element’s broadest reasonable interpretation, the LLM is determining if a response is good or not, which is making a mental judgement as to whether a response is valid; hence this mental process makes the element an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 17:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, this claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “input filter and the output filter are updated based on responses stored in the memory module” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, updating responses of the filters can be determined as changing your judgement on specific ideas that you mentally processed previously. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Therefore, claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite, when claim elements are examined, individually and as a whole as a whole, elements that the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liden et al (US 20200334568 A1).
Referring to claim 1, Liden discloses a system to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM), the LLM being configured to process an input and give an output, the LLM being deployed in a LLM module further comprising an input filter and at least an output filter, ([0019] of Liden, “chatbots are… based on declarative rules…found in input. Additionally… a developer may define chatbot’s reactions to inputs…”, hence the LLM module can be interpreted as a chatbot and the chatbot’s will have defined rules based on inputs and rules dictated by developers for output (chatbot’s reactions/conversation).) the system comprising:
a moderation module configured to receive the input and generate at least one moderation output; ([0016] of Liden mentions that “a chatbot responds to input from users in a way that moves the conversation”, hence the conversation prompt is the moderation module that generates a response based on the receiving user input.)
a second large language model (LLM’), ([0021] of Liden, “response model can be an artificial neural network (ANN)…”, hence the response model is the second large language model.) the LLM’ being configured to:
receive the input and the moderation output; ([0021] of Liden, “a response model that can be configured to select outputs… where the outputs of the response model are based upon… inputs”, hence the response model is configured to process “select outputs” dictated by the incoming “inputs”)
process the input and the moderation output to get a response; ([0021] of Liden mentions “an entity extractor module that can be configured to identify and extract entities in input… identified in the conversation” and a “response model that can be configured to select outputs”, hence the response model processes the input dictated by the entity extractor module and keeps track of the conversation (moderation output) to determine a response.)
communicate the response with at least one of the input filter and the output filter to prevent misuse of the LLM; ([0021] of Liden mentions “an entity extractor module that can be configured to identify and extract entities in input” and a “response model that can be configured to select outputs… based on declarative rules”, hence the response model processes the input dictated by the entity extractor module rules (filter) and the conversation based on certain rules (filter).) and
a memory module configured to store the processed responses of the LLM’. ([0034] of Liden discloses of a “memory that can… be configured to” update “entity extractor module and/or response mode”, hence the memory module is disclosed to store the processed inputs (entity extractor module) and responses of the response model.)
Referring to claim 2, Liden discloses the system to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the system is deployed in parallel to the LLM module. ([0026] of Liden mentions that the chatbot system can “include a server computing device 106 that may be in communication with the client computing device”, hence chatbot runs parallel with the system as it needs communication with the client side of the system.)
Referring to claim 3, Liden discloses the system to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the moderation module comprises a plurality of moderation models, each moderation model being configured to identify at least one restricted attribute in the input. ([0056] of Liden notes earlier that “a chatbot can be a combination of multiple learning methods, such as by use of declarative rules… the chatbot may be initially based on machine learning methods, and refining declarative rules…”, hence moderation module can have multiple chatbots system with different sets of rules, since the specifications is silent onto what restricted attributes, hence rules can be interpreted as restricted attributes.)
Referring to claim 4, Liden discloses the system to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 3, wherein the moderation output comprises identification of at least one restricted attribute. ([0021] of Liden mentions that the developer is “able to customize certain entity types and associated rules, such as whether an entity type can appear in user inputs, system responses, and/or both”, hence the conversation is interpreted as moderation output and entity type is interpreted on rules that identifies one restricted attribute.)
Referring to claim 5, Liden discloses the system to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the moderation module is configured to transform the input to text and generate a question prompt as the moderation output. (304C of Figure 3B and [0065] of Liden mentions asking “a user ‘Would you like anything else?’”, hence the moderation module transform input and generates a question prompt.)
Referring to claim 6, Liden discloses the system to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processed responses of the LLM’ further comprise a reasoning response and a classification response. ([0025] of Liden discloses “a tree view… In the tree view, details associated with the training dialogs, such as inputs, actions, or rules associated with actions… can easily be viewed and edited”, hence the tree view can be interpreted as a reasoning response since the tree further dictate the action of the response model and the classification response whether the tree splits into a decision.)
Referring to claim 7, Liden discloses the system to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the input is blocked by input filter based on communication received from the LLM’. ([0023] of Liden again mentions the entity extractor module and response model, hence the response model contains a neural network that can block certain inputs to produce better responses of the chatbot system)
Referring to claim 8, Liden discloses the system to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the output filter modifies or blocks the output generated by the LLM based on communication received from the LLM’. ([0023] of Liden mentions that the response model can detect which outputs to select based on rules, hence LLM’ modifies or blocks output generated by the chatbot)
Referring to claim 9, Liden discloses the system to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the input filter and the output filter are updated based on responses stored in the memory module. ([0035] of Liden mentions memory module updates entity extractor module and response models based on rules setup by developer when analyzing processed inputs and responses)
Referring to claim 10, Liden discloses a method to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM), the LLM being configured to process an input and give an output, the LLM being deployed in a LLM module further comprising an input filter and at least an output filter, ([0026] and [0030] of Liden mentions “a chatbot is a computer-implemented system that can be configured to provide a service based on inputs… Entities as used herein refer to aspects of the input that the chatbot should operate on, and each entity may have an associated type”, hence the method discloses the input and output of an LLM module that also filters based on the input (entity type) and filters the output based on the entity.) the method comprising:
generating at least one moderation output by way of a moderation module; ([0016] of Liden mentions the chatbot system and that the moderation module is the chatbot’s conversation)
transmitting the input and the moderation output to a second large foundation model (LLM’); ([0021] of Liden discloses “a response model that can be configured to select outputs to provide to the users in response to receipt of the inputs from the users”, hence the LLM’ is the response model that takes in the input and output of the moderation module.)
processing the input and the moderation output by way of the LLM’ to get a response; ([0021] of Liden mentions “an entity extractor module that can be configured to identify and extract entities in input” and a “response model that can be configured to select outputs….and existing data resulting…”, hence LLM’ processes the input by entity extractor module and handles responses based on the input of the user and chatbot’s output in the existing conversation.)
communicating the response with at least one of the input filter and the output filter to prevent misuse of the LLM; ([0021] of Liden mentions “an entity extractor module that can be configured to identify and extract entities in input” and a “response model that can be configured to select outputs… based on declarative rules”, hence the response model processes the input dictated by the entity extractor module rules (filter) and the response based on certain rules (filter).) and
storing the processed responses in a memory module. ([0035] of Liden mentions “Memory 114 can also include an updater module 124 that can be configured to update entity extractor module 116 and/or response model 118 based upon input received”, hence there the storing of processed responses in a memory module.)
Referring to claim 11, Liden discloses the method to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 10, wherein the moderation module comprises a plurality of moderation models, each moderation model being configured to identify at least one restricted attribute in the input. ([0056] of Liden notes earlier that “a chatbot can be a combination of multiple learning methods, such as by use of declarative rules… the chatbot may be initially based on machine learning methods, and refining declarative rules…”, hence moderation module can have multiple chatbots system with different sets of rules, rules being at least one restricted attribute in input.)
Referring to claim 12, Liden discloses the method to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 11, wherein the moderation output comprises identification of at least one restricted attribute. ([0021] of Liden mentions that the developer is “able to customize certain entity types and associated rules, such as whether an entity type can appear in user inputs, system responses, and/or both”, hence system responses is interpreted as moderation output and entity type is interpreted on rules that identifies one restricted attribute.)
Referring to claim 13, Liden discloses the method to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 10, wherein the moderation module is configured to transform the input to text and generate a question prompt as the moderation output. (304C of Figure 3B and [0065] of Liden mentions asking “a user ‘Would you like anything else?’”, hence the moderation module transform the input and generates a question prompt. **If needed more about data input mention PP39 and voice commands)
Referring to claim 14, Liden discloses the method to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 10, wherein the processed responses of the LLM’ further comprise a reasoning response and a classification response. ([0025] of Liden discloses “a tree view… In the tree view, details associated with the training dialogs, such as inputs, actions, or rules associated with actions… can easily be viewed and edited”, hence the tree view can be interpreted as a reasoning response since the tree further dictate the action of the response model and the classification response whether the tree splits into a decision.)
Referring to claim 15, Liden discloses the method to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 10, wherein communicating the response further comprises blocking the input prompt by way of the input filter. ([0023] of Liden again mentions the entity extractor module and response model, hence the response model contains a neural network that can block certain inputs to produce better responses of the chatbot system)
Referring to claim 16, Liden discloses the method to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 10, wherein communicating the response further comprises blocking or modifying the output generated by the LLM by way of the output filter. ([0023] of Liden mentions that the response model can detect which outputs to select based on rules, hence LLM’ modifies or blocks output generated by the chatbot)
Referring to claim 17, Liden discloses the method to prevent misuse of a large foundation model (LLM) as claimed in claim 10, wherein the input filter and the output filter are updated based on responses stored in the memory module. ([0035] of Liden mentions memory module updates entity extractor module and response models based on rules setup by developer when analyzing processed inputs and responses)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIMEI JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached at 571-270-1006. 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.
/HAIMEI JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights