DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Amendment
2. In response to the amendment filed
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
3. 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 1-7 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1 recites a method comprising:
receiving a vocal input message from a trainee;
converting the vocal input message into a text input message;
identifying a content of the text input message;
accessing and searching a database to determine an educational advice;
generating a response message containing the educational advice;
converting the response message into a vocal response message; and
providing the vocal response message to the trainee
The limitations of receiving a vocal input, converting it into text, identifying a content, searching a database, generating a response and providing the response, as drafted, constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, aside from the “large language model” language, which amounts to a computer programmed with a LLM algorithm to perform the processing, these steps could be practically being performed by a human for example by listening to a vocal message, identifying the content of the message, searching a database, and providing a response to the message. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites using a large language model to perform the processing and generating steps. The model in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic large language model algorithm performing generic computer functions of converting text and generating a response) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim further recites the method is used for pilot training on a simulator, extracting the request related to the simulator, and the data is about an aircraft on which the training is performed, and the current system status of the simulator. This amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (pilot training simulators). See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a LLM to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, as noted above the use of the method on a pilot training simulator only generally links the use of the exception to a particular technological environment. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15 recite the same abstract idea as in claim 1, only recite further abstract limitations (e.g. monitoring and evaluating trainee based on relevant metrics) being performed in the generic simulator using generic neural network elements, and generic computer elements configured to perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, these claims do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the section 103 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The section 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the section 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claim 1 is not directed to a mental process, because the process of searching a database to generate a response message is based on the status of the simulator and is therefore integrated into the simulator. However, it is noted that receiving a current system status is merely involved in the pre-solution data gathering, and the process of receiving a message, processing it, and generating a response, is not otherwise integrated into the functioning of the simulator. The gathering of simulator status information only adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Applicant further argues, similarly, that the method is integrated into a particular technological environment by providing context-sensitive guidance tailored to the operational state of the simulated aircraft. This is not persuasive. The involvement of the simulator only serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception (receiving a message from a user, searching a database, and generating a response message containing educational advice) to a particular technological environment (pilot training simulators). See MPEP 2106.05(h), Examples vi. (Electric Power Group) and viii. (Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Bank).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights