DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argued that Meier-Hellstern failed to disclose propagating at least one permission from the first set of permissions to at least a first portion of the output, wherein propagating the at least one permission includes applying a second set of permissions including the at least one permission to at least the first portion of the output.
Garg disclosed propagating at least one permission from the first set of permissions to at least a first portion of the output wherein propagating the at least one permission includes applying a second set of permissions including the at least one permission to at least the first portion of the output. See Garg [0062], [0064], [0067]-[0071], where the output is the dashboard in [0071] where the user accesses only the information that the primary user has granted them access to.
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.
Claims 1, 6-9, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier-Hellstern et al. (US 2023/0124288) in view of Garg (US 2024/0244060).
In regard to claim 1, Meier-Hellstern disclosed a computer-implemented method for securing output from one or more nondeterministic models, the computer-implemented method comprising, by one or more hardware processors executing program instructions:
receiving, from a user and via one or more graphical user interfaces, one or more user inputs including at least: Meier-Hellstern [0018]
a first user input providing at least a portion of a first prompt for a query for a first nondeterministic model; and Meier-Hellstern [0023]
in response to receiving the one or more user inputs:
executing the query, by the first nondeterministic model, to generate an output; Meier-Hellstern [0024]
determining a first one or more data inputs used, or to be used, by the first nondeterministic model during execution of the query; Meier-Hellstern [0024]
determining a first set of permissions associated with the first one or more data inputs; and Meier-Hellstern [0031]
Meier-Hellstern failed to disclose propagating at least one permission from the first set of permissions to at least a first portion of the output, wherein propagating the at least one permission includes applying a second set of permissions including the at least one permission to at least the first portion of the output.
However, Garg disclosed propagating at least one permission from the first set of permissions to at least a first portion of the output wherein propagating the at least one permission includes applying a second set of permissions including the at least one permission to at least the first portion of the output. See Garg [0062], [0064], [0067]-[0071], where the output is the dashboard in [0071] where the user accesses only the information that the primary user has granted them access to.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to propagate permissions between systems in Meier-Hellstern in order to further secure the data accessible to a user, thereby providing enhanced privacy to the data.
In regard to claim 6, Meier-Hellstern disclosed wherein the first one or more data inputs are determined, at least in part, by the first nondeterministic model during execution of the query. Meier-Hellstern [0054]
In regard to claim 7, Meier-Hellstern disclosed determining the first one or more data inputs further comprises:
determining at least a second data input of the first one or more data inputs based at least in part on the first prompt for the query. Meier-Hellstern [0054]
In regard to claim 8, Meier-Hellstern disclosed:
receiving, from the user and via the one or more graphical user interfaces, a second one or more user inputs including at least:
a second user input providing a second prompt for a second query for the first nondeterministic model, wherein the second prompt is identical to, or similar to, the first prompt; and Meier-Hellstern [0054]
in response to receiving the second one or more user inputs:
executing the second query, by the first nondeterministic model, to generate a second output; Meier-Hellstern [0054]
determining a second one or more data inputs used by the first nondeterministic model during execution of the second query, wherein the second one or more data inputs are different than the first one or more data inputs; Meier-Hellstern [0054]
determining a third set of permissions associated with the second one or more data inputs; Meier-Hellstern [0031] and
applying a fourth set of permissions to at least a first portion of the second output based on the third set of permissions. Meier-Hellstern [0032]
In regard to claim 9, Meier-Hellstern disclosed wherein the first one or more data inputs is a reduced set of data inputs compared to a total set of data inputs accessible by the user. Meier-Hellstern [0032]
In regard to claim 12, Meier-Hellstern disclosed the first nondeterministic model is a language model. Meier-Hellstern [0023]
In regard to claim 13, Meier-Hellstern disclosed the first nondeterministic model is a large language model. Meier-Hellstern [0023]
Claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim(s) 2-5, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier-Hellstern in view of Garg in view of Chhibber et al. (US 12,380,361).
In regard to claim 2, Meier-Hellstern and Garg failed to disclose wherein:
the first one or more data inputs comprises at least a first data input and a second data input, the first data input requiring a first permission to access and the second data input requiring a second permission to access;
the first set of permissions comprises at least the first permission and the second permission; and
the second set of permissions comprises at least one of the first permission or the second permission.
However, Chhibber disclosed:
the first one or more data inputs comprises at least a first data input and a second data input, the first data input requiring a first permission to access and the second data input requiring a second permission to access; Chhibber column 4 lines 41-66
the first set of permissions comprises at least the first permission and the second permission; Chhibber column 4 lines 41-66 and
the second set of permissions comprises at least one of the first permission or the second permission. Chhibber column 4 lines 41-66
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use access permissions as part of the inputs for performing a LLM query in order to limit access to the LLM to appropriate users.
In regard to claim 3, Meier-Hellstern and Garg failed to disclose wherein the second set of permissions are at least one of:
a propagation of the first set of permissions from the first one or more data inputs to the at least the first portion of the output,
a subset of the first set of permissions, or
a reduced set of permissions as compared to the first set of permissions.
However, Chhibber disclosed wherein the second set of permissions are at least one of:
a propagation of the first set of permissions from the first one or more data inputs to the at least the first portion of the output,
a subset of the first set of permissions, Chhibber column 4 lines 41-66 or
a reduced set of permissions as compared to the first set of permissions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a limited set of permissions with Meier-Hellstern and Garg in order to control access to the nondeterministic LLM and limit access to permitted users.
In regard to claim 4, Meier-Hellstern and Garg failed to disclose:
determining one or more access credentials associated with the user; and
granting the first nondeterministic model access to at least a first data input of the first one or more data inputs based at least in part on the one or more access credentials.
However, Chhibber disclosed:
determining one or more access credentials associated with the user; Chhibber column 4 lines 41-66 and
granting the first nondeterministic model access to at least a first data input of the first one or more data inputs based at least in part on the one or more access credentials. Chhibber column 4 lines 62-66.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use access credentials with Meier-Hellstern and Garg in order to control access to the nondeterministic LLM and limit access to permitted users.
In regard to claim 5, Chhibber further disclosed:
receiving, from the first nondeterministic model, a request to access at least a third data input of the first one or more data inputs based on at least one of: the first prompt for the query, or the one or more access credentials. Chhibber column 4 lines 62-66.
In regard to claim 18, Meier-Hellstern and Garg failed to disclose:
determining the second set of permissions, wherein the second set of permissions is determined based at least in part on at least one of: the first set of permissions, access credentials associated with the first nondeterministic model, access credentials associated with the user, one or more user inputs, and/or any combination of the foregoing.
However, Chhibber disclosed:
determining the second set of permissions, wherein the second set of permissions is determined based at least in part on at least one of: the first set of permissions, access credentials associated with the first nondeterministic model, access credentials associated with the user, one or more user inputs, and/or any combination of the foregoing. Chhibber column 4 lines 41-66
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use access credentials with Meier-Hellstern and Garg in order to control access to the nondeterministic LLM and limit access to permitted users.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier-Hellstern and Garg in view of Mcquinn (US 2024/0395246).
In regard to claim 10, Meier-Hellstern and Garg failed to disclose:
determining, during execution of the query, whether a second nondeterministic model accessed the first portion;
in response to determining that the second nondeterministic model accessed the first portion, propagating the second set of permissions to at least a second portion of the output of the second nondeterministic model.
However, Mcquinn disclosed:
determining, during execution of the query, whether a second nondeterministic model accessed the first portion; Mcquinn [0028]
in response to determining that the second nondeterministic model accessed the first portion, propagating the second set of permissions to at least a second portion of the output of the second nondeterministic model. Mcquinn [0028]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a second LLM with Meier-Hellstern in order to provide the proper responses to the query in Meier-Hellstern.
In regard to claim 11, Mcquinn further disclosed wherein the second nondeterministic model is the first nondeterministic model. Mcquinn [0027]
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier-Hellstern and Garg in view of Wohlstadter et al. (US 2023/0045713).
In regard to claim 14, Meier-Hellstern and Garg failed to disclose wherein determining the first set of permissions comprises:
causing at least the first set of permissions to display on the one or more graphical user interfaces;
receiving, from the user and via the one or more graphical user interfaces, a third one or more user inputs comprising at least a confirmation input for the first set of permissions; and
in response to receiving the confirmation input, determining whether to remove at least a subset of the first set of permissions.
However, Wohlstadter disclosed wherein determining the first set of permissions comprises:
causing at least the first set of permissions to display on the one or more graphical user interfaces; Wohlstadter [0466]-[0470]
receiving, from the user and via the one or more graphical user interfaces, a third one or more user inputs comprising at least a confirmation input for the first set of permissions; and Wohlstadter [0466]-[0470]
in response to receiving the confirmation input, determining whether to remove at least a subset of the first set of permissions. Wohlstadter [0466]-[0470]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a graphical user interface with Meier-Hellstern and Garg in order to adjust user permissions and remove user permissions when accessing the nondeterministic model in Meier-Hellstern and Garg.
In regard to claim 15, Wohlstadter further disclosed:
in response to determining to remove at least the subset of the first set of permissions, removing at least the subset of the first set of permissions. Wohlstadter [0466]-[0470]
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier-Hellstern and Garg in view of Tuchman et al. (US 2014/0119531).
In regard to claim 16, Meier-Hellstern and Garg failed to disclose:
causing display, in one or more graphical user interfaces, at least one of: the first set of permissions, or the second set of permissions;
receiving, from the user and via the one or more graphical user interfaces, a confirmation and/or change to the second set of permissions to be applied to the at least the first portion of the output.
However, Tuchman disclosed:
causing display, in one or more graphical user interfaces, at least one of: the first set of permissions, or the second set of permissions; Tuchman Figure 8A
receiving, from the user and via the one or more graphical user interfaces, a confirmation and/or change to the second set of permissions to be applied to the at least the first portion of the output. Tuchman Figure 8A
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a graphical user interface to input and confirm access credentials / permissions with Meier-Hellstern for the purposes of identity verification.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier-Hellstern and Garg in view of Bodapati et al. (US 11,531,846).
In regard to claim 17, Meier-Hellstern disclosed:
determining the output of the first nondeterministic model is accessed without a required access credential for the second set of permissions; Meier-Hellstern [0018]
Meier-Hellstern and Garg failed to disclose:
redacting at least the first portion.
However, Bodapati disclosed:
redacting at least the first portion. Bodapati column 6 lines 5-16
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to redact sensitive information from a query in Meier-Hellstern and Garg if the user was not authorized to receive the sensitive information in the query response from the LLM in Meier-Hellstern and Garg.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey R. Swearingen whose telephone number is (571)272-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at 571-270-1684. 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.
Jeffrey R. Swearingen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Jeffrey R Swearingen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445