DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This non-final office action is in response to the application filed 30 May 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 16 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 30 May 2024, 1 October 2025, 8 January 2026, and 16 January 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The examiner accepts the drawings filed 30 May 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 5, 15, and 20, the claim recites the term “substantially matches (claim 5, line 5; claim 15, line 6; claim 20, line 6). The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For this reason, the term renders each of the claims indefinite.
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.
Step 1:
According to Step 1 of the two Step analysis, claims 1-10 are directed toward a method (process). Claims 11-15 are directed toward a non-transitory machine-readable medium (manufacture). Claims 16-20 are directed toward a system (machine). Therefore, each of these claims falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 1:
The claim recites:
analyzing the inference using a schema to obtain a set of concepts displayed by the inference (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an observation to analyze an inference using a schema to obtain a set of concepts displayed by the inference)
obtaining a structure representation of the inference based on the set of concepts (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation to obtain a structure representation of the inference based on the set of concepts)
performing a comparison process using the structured representation of the inference and structured representations of reference works to obtain a level of similarity between the inference and the reference works (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a judgement by performing a comparison using the structured representation of the inference and the structured representations of referenced work to determine a similarity)
making a determination regarding whether the inference is accepted based on the level of similarity and a similarity threshold (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a judgement to determine whether the inference is accepted based on the level of judged similarity)
in a second instance of the determination where the inference is unacceptable: initiating performance of an action set to manage an impact of the level of similarity between the inference and reference works (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation to manage an impact of the level of similarity. This includes the similarity indicating a likelihood that the inference plagiarizes the reference works (see: claim 7))
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
obtaining an inference generated using the generative inference model and ingest data
The additional elements is directed toward data gathering, which is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
in a first instance of the determination where the inference is acceptable: providing the inference to a downstream consumer as a computer-implemented service
These limitations amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”)
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
obtaining an inference generated using the generative inference model and ingest data
The additional elements is directed toward data gathering, which is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
in a first instance of the determination where the inference is acceptable: providing the inference to a downstream consumer as a computer-implemented service
These limitations amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”)
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2:
With respect to claim 2, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
generate human interpretable text when prompted using the ingest data, the human interpretable text being responsive to a request indicated by the ingest data (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an opinion to generate human interpretable text based upon ingest data)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the generative inference model is trained
Training is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the generative inference model is trained
Training is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3:
With respect to claim 3, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the schema is adapted to facilitate identification of at least one of: a location indicated by the inference, a character indicated by the inference, an object indicated by the inference, and a law of nature indicated by the inference (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an observation to analyze an inference using a schema adapted to facilitate identification of at least one of a location, a character, an object, and a law of nature indicated by the inference)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim fails to recite any additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim fails to recite any additional elements considered under Step 2B.
Claim 4:
With respect to claim 4, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the structured representation of the inference comprises a graph-structured data model that specifies relationships between concepts of the set of concepts, the graph-structured data model comprising nodes and edges, and the edges being based on the relationships between the concepts associated with the edges (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation to obtain a structure representation of the inference comprising a graph-structure data model comprising nodes and edges, the edges being based on relationships between the concepts associated with the edges)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim fails to recite any additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim fails to recite any additional elements considered under Step 2B.
Claim 5:
With respect to claim 5, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
performing a sub-graph analysis of the structured representation of the inference with respect to portions of the structured representation of the inference with respect to portions of the structured representations of the reference works to identify whether a portion of the structured representation of the inference substantially matches one of the portions of the structured representations of the reference works (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation to perform a sub-graph analysis of the structured representation of the inference with respect to portions of the structured representation of the inference to identify whether a portion of the structured representation of the inference matches one of the portions of the structured representations of the reference works)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim fails to recite any additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim fails to recite any additional elements considered under Step 2B.
Claim 6:
With respect to claim 6, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
prior to performing the comparison process: for a portion of the reference works: analyzing the portion of the reference work to obtain a set of concepts associated with the portion of the reference works (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation to analyze the portions of the reference work to obtain a set of concepts associated with the portion of the reference works)
obtaining a structured representation of the portion of the reference works based on the set of concepts associated with the portion of the reference works (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation to obtain a structure representation of the portion of the reference works based on the set of concepts associated with the portion of the reference works)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim fails to recite any additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim fails to recite any additional elements considered under Step 2B.
Claim 7:
With respect to claim 7, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the level of similarity indicates a likelihood that the inference plagiarizes the reference works (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an judgement of the likelihood that the inference plagiarizes based on a level of similarity)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim fails to recite any additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim fails to recite any additional elements considered under Step 2B.
Claim 8:
With respect to claim 8, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the action set comprises obtaining a description of similarities between the inference and the reference works (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation to obtain a description of similarities between the inference and the reference works)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim fails to recite any additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim fails to recite any additional elements considered under Step 2B.
Claim 9:
With respect to claim 9, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the action set comprises preventing provision of the inference to the downstream consumer (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an judgement of the likelihood that the inference plagiarizes based on a level of similarity and preventing providing the data)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim fails to recite any additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim fails to recite any additional elements considered under Step 2B.
Claim 10:
With respect to claim 10, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim is directed toward the same abstract idea as identified with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the action set comprises at least one action that, when performed, modifies operation and/or use of the generative inference model to reduce a likelihood that a future inference generated using the generative inference model and the ingest data plagiarizes the reference work
Training and use of the generative inference model is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the action set comprises at least one action that, when performed, modifies operation and/or use of the generative inference model to reduce a likelihood that a future inference generated using the generative inference model and the ingest data plagiarizes the reference work
Training and use of the generative inference model is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11:
With respect to claim 11, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim is directed toward the same abstract idea identified with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing a generative inference model
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing a generative inference model
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 12-15:
With respect to claims 12-15, the claims recite the limitations substantially similar to those in claims 2-5, respectively. The analysis of claims 2-5 is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 16:
With respect to claim 16, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim is directed toward the same abstract idea identified with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
a processor
a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing a generative inference model
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
a processor
a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing a generative inference model
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 17-20:
With respect to claims 17-20, the claims recite the limitations substantially similar to those in claims 2-5, respectively. The analysis of claims 2-5 is incorporated herein by reference.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danielyan et al. (US 2014/0129212, published 8 May 2014, hereafter Danielyan) and further in view of Waldron et al. (US 2025/0292113, filed 13 March 2024, hereafter Waldron).
As per independent claim 1, Danielyan discloses a method for managing a generative inference model, the method comprising:
obtaining an inference (Figure 11, item 1111; paragraph 0086: Here, a corpus of document is obtained. A given document, interpreted by the examiner as an inference, the document is compared to other documents within the corpus of document to identify similarity)
analyzing the inference using a schema to obtain a set of concepts displayed by the inference (paragraphs 0033 and 0086: Here, a source document/text is compared to a number of documents using syntactic and semantic analyses and language-independent semantic structures)
obtaining a structured representation of the inference based on the set of concepts (paragraph 0040: Here, the documents may be divided into blocks and a tree-like block structure generated to facilitate comparison)
performing a comparison process using the structured representation of the inference and structured representations of reference works to obtain a level of similarity between the inference and the reference works (paragraph 0040: Here, the document may be divided into important blocks, such as titles and headers, to be compared. Additionally, block structures of the documents may be compared using weights. Further, the documents may be divided into a tree-like view and compared in a top-down approach)
making a determination regarding whether the inference is acceptable based on the level of similarity and a similarity threshold (paragraph 0008: Here, a similarity measure is compared to a threshold to determine if the document are deemed to be similar enough that one document could have been plagiarized from the other)
in a first instance of the determination where the inference is acceptable: providing the inference to a downstream consumer (claim 7: Here, based upon an identification that a difference value exceeds a difference threshold, the pair of electronic files are presented to the user)
in a second instance of the determination where the inference is unacceptable: initiating performance of an action set to manage an impact of the level of similarity between the inference and the reference works (claims 4 and 7: Here, display of a pair of electronic files is displayed to a user based upon a determination that the files fail to exceed a difference threshold. Further, these files may be displayed in a manner where the identified similar fragments are displayed by aligning the identified fragments in the user interface)
Danielyan fails to specifically disclose:
an inference generated using the generative inference model and ingest data
a computer-implemented service
However, Waldron, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward generating custom content items based upon ingested data, discloses:
an inference generated using the generative inference model and ingest data (paragraph 0059: Here, a custom digital content item (inference) is generated by a large language model (generative inference model) based upon an initial digital content item (ingest data))
a computer-implemented service (paragraph 0023: Here, content is provided as a data-as a service)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Waldron with Danielyan, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for generating custom content items based on ingested documents (Waldron: paragraph 0059) while determining the similarity between documents (Danielyan: paragraph 0008).
As per dependent claim 2, Danielyan and Waldron disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Waldron discloses wherein the generative inference model is trained to generate human interpretable text when prompted using the ingest data, the human interpretable text being responsive to a request indicated by the ingest data (paragraph 0059: Here, a custom digital content item (inference) is generated by a large language model (generative inference model) based upon an initial digital content item (ingest data)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Waldron with Danielyan, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for generating custom content items based on ingested documents (Waldron: paragraph 0059) while determining the similarity between documents (Danielyan: paragraph 0008).
As per dependent claim 3, Danielyan and Waldron disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Danielyan discloses wherein the schema is adapted to facilitate identification of at least one of: a location indicated by the inference, a character indicated by the inference, an object indicated by the inference, and a law of nature indicated by the inference (paragraph 0040: Here, the document may be divided into important blocks, such as titles and headers, to be compared. Additionally, block structures of the documents may be compared using weights. Further, the documents may be divided into a tree-like view and compared in a top-down approach. The examiner interprets the comparison of block containing textual information as identification of character(s) and/or an object(s) within the inference).
As per dependent claim 5, Danielyan and Waldron disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Danielyan discloses wherein performing the comparison process comprises performing a sub-graph analysis of the structured representation of the inference with respect to portions of the structured representations of the reference works to identify whether a portion of the structured representation of the inference substantially matches one of the portions of the structured representations of the reference works (paragraph 0040: Here, the document may be divided into important blocks, such as titles and headers, to be compared. Additionally, block structures of the documents may be compared using weights. Further, the documents may be divided into a tree-like view and compared in a top-down approach).
As per dependent claim 6, Danielyan and Waldron disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Danielyan discloses:
prior to performing the comparison process: for a portion of the reference works:
analyze the portion of the reference work to obtain a set of concepts associated with the portion of the reference works (Figure 1A; paragraphs 0050-0052: Prior to performing comparison, each text in a corpora is processed. This includes lexical descriptions, morphological descriptions, syntactic descriptions, and semantic descriptions. A language independent semantic structure is generated and indexed. This index comprises a representation in the form of a table, where each value of a feature (word, sentence) in a document is accompanied by a list of numbers or addresses of its occurrences in the document)
obtaining a structured representation of the portion of the reference works based on the set of concepts associated with the portion of the reference works (Figure 1A; paragraphs 0050-0052: Prior to performing comparison, each text in a corpora is processed. This includes lexical descriptions, morphological descriptions, syntactic descriptions, and semantic descriptions. A language independent semantic structure is generated and indexed. This index comprises a representation in the form of a table, where each value of a feature (word, sentence) in a document is accompanied by a list of numbers or addresses of its occurrences in the document)
As per dependent claim 7, Danielyan and Waldron disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Danielyan disclose wherein the level of similarity indicates a likelihood that the inference plagiarizes the reference works (paragraph 0008).
As per dependent claim 8, Danielyan and Waldron disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Danielyan discloses wherein the action set comprises obtaining a description of similarities between the inference and the reference works (claims 4 and 7: Here, display of a pair of electronic files is displayed to a user based upon a determination that the files fail to exceed a difference threshold. Further, these files may be displayed in a manner where the identified similar fragments are displayed by aligning the identified fragments in the user interface).
As per dependent claim 10, Danielyan and Waldron disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Waldron discloses wherein the action set comprises at least one action that, when performed, modifies operation and/or use of the generative inference model to reduce a likelihood that a future inference generated using the generative inference model and the ingest data plagiarizes the reference works (paragraph 0067: Here, based upon user interactions, the model is retrained to improve the model predictions for content that is relevant). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Waldron with Danielyan, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for generating custom content items based on ingested documents (Waldron: paragraph 0059) while determining the similarity between documents (Danielyan: paragraph 0008).
With respect to independent claim 11, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 1. The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Danielyan further discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations (paragraphs 0089-0090).
With respect to claims 12-13 and 15, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claims 2-3 and 5, respectively. The rejection of claims 2-3 and 5 are incorporated herein by reference.
With respect to independent claim 16, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 1. The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Danielyan further discloses a processor and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (paragraphs 0089-0090).
With respect to claims 17-18 and 20, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claims 2-3 and 5, respectively. The rejection of claims 2-3 and 5 are incorporated herein by reference.
Claims 4, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danielyan and Waldron and further in view of Portisch et al. (US 2025/0335794, filed 26 April 2024, hereafter Portisch).
As per dependent claim 4, Danielyan and Waldron disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Danielyan discloses wherein the structured representation of the inference comprises a graph-structured data model that specifies relationships between concepts and the set of concepts (Figure 5B; paragraph 0040: Here, the tree- structure is a graph-structured data model that specifies relationships between concepts and the set of concepts).
Danielyan fails to specifically disclose the graph-structured data comprising nodes and edges, and the edges being based on the relationship between the concepts associated with the edges.
However, Portisch, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward generating a knowledge graph, discloses the graph-structured data comprising nodes and edges, and the edges being based on the relationship between the concepts associated with the edges (paragraph 0035: Here, a knowledge graph employs nodes and edges to represent entities and relationships to facilitate visual understanding between the modeled concepts).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Portisch with Danielyan and Waldron, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for encoding information in a graph based format, having nodes representing entities and edges denoting relationships between the entities (Portisch: paragraph 0002).
With respect to claims 14 and 19, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 4. The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danielyan and Waldron and further in view of Jha et al. (US 11776026, patented 3 October 2023, hereafter Jha).
As per dependent claim 9, Danielyan and Waldron disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Danielyan fails to specifically disclose wherein the action set comprises preventing provision of the inference to the downstream consumer.
However, Jha, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward managing plagiarized content, discloses wherein the action set comprises preventing provision of the interface to the downstream consumer (column 9, lines 6-16: Here, content determined to be plagiarized is deleted. The examiner interprets deletion as “preventing provision… to the downstream consumer”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined by Jha with Danielyan-Waldron, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for deletion of plagiarized contents (Jha: column 9, lines 6-16).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Madhavan et al. (US 12339889): Discloses a machine learning system for clustering documents and identifying plagiarized articles (column 2, line 61- column 3, line 15)
Thanvantri Vasudevan et al. (US 12724981): Discloses ingesting large amounts of data and tuning large language models (Abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE R STORK whose telephone number is (571)272-4130. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 2pm; 4pm - 6pm.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at 571/272-2589. 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.
/KYLE R STORK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights