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 .
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 abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “identifying a content management system (CMS) wherein collaboration activities occur over time and over content objects maintained in the CMS, and wherein the CMS maintains a historical record of occurrences of the collaborator activities over the content objects; “ and “using CMS metadata to reduce a larger corpus of content objects to a smaller corpus of context passages.” which are directed to groupings of abstract idea - a mental process – since it is directed to that observation (identifying) and evaluation (using). (step 2a prong 1)
The additional element “receiving a natural language query from a CMS collaborator; and” are limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application since they are merely adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)II – the courts have recognized the following computer functions as insignificant extra solution activity - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). (step 2a prong 2)
The claim(s), taken individually and in combination does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to extra solution activity. The “receiving a natural language query from a cms collaborator” is extra-solution activity that is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network which courts have recognized as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions MPEP 2106.06 (d)(II). Clam 1 is therefore ineligible. (step 2b)
Dependent claims 2-10 are rejected as they do not remedy the deficiencies of claim 1. Claims 2-10 are abstract ideas as they are directed towards an observation as they are further directed to step of identifying.
It is advised to 1) to provide an additional limitation that does not fall within a grouping of abstract ideas and 2) show that the additional limitation reflects an improvement that has a technical explanation provided in the specification.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “identifying a content management system (CMS) wherein collaboration activities occur over time and over content objects maintained in the CMS, and wherein the CMS maintains a historical record of occurrences of the collaborator activities over the content objects; “ and “using CMS metadata to reduce a larger corpus of content objects to a smaller corpus of context passages.” which are directed to groupings of abstract idea - a mental process – since it is directed to that observation (identifying) and evaluation (using). (step 2a prong 1)
The additional element “receiving a natural language query from a CMS collaborator; and” are limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application since they are merely adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)II – the courts have recognized the following computer functions as insignificant extra solution activity - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). The claim further recites additional elements related to the computer “A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions which, when stored in memory and executed by one or more processors causes the one or more processors to perform a set of acts for identifying selected portions of a set of content objects for use in generating a large language model (LLM) prompt” which merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f). (step 2a prong 2 – additional elements integrated into practical application)
The claim(s), taken individually and in combination does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to extra solution activity. The “receiving a natural language query from a cms collaborator” is extra-solution activity that is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network which courts have recognized as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions MPEP 2106.06 (d)(II). Clam 1 is therefore ineligible. (step 2b – significantly more)
Dependent claims 12-18 are rejected as they do not remedy the deficiencies of claim 11. Claims 12-18 are abstract ideas as they are directed towards an observation as they are further directed to step of identifying.
It is advised to 1) to provide an additional limitation that does not fall within a grouping of abstract ideas and 2) show that the additional limitation reflects an improvement that has a technical explanation provided in the specification.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “identifying a content management system (CMS) wherein collaboration activities occur over time and over content objects maintained in the CMS, and wherein the CMS maintains a historical record of occurrences of the collaborator activities over the content objects; “ and “using CMS metadata to reduce a larger corpus of content objects to a smaller corpus of context passages.” which are directed to groupings of abstract idea - a mental process – since it is directed to that observation (identifying) and evaluation (using). (step 2a prong 1)
The additional element “receiving a natural language query from a CMS collaborator; and” are limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application since they are merely adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)II – the courts have recognized the following computer functions as insignificant extra solution activity - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). The claim further recites additional elements related to the computer “a storage medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions; and one or more processors that execute the sequence of instructions to cause the one or more processors to perform a set of acts, the set of acts comprising” which merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f). (step 2a prong 2 – additional elements integrated into practical application)
The claim(s), taken individually and in combination does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to extra solution activity. The “receiving a natural language query from a cms collaborator” is extra-solution activity that is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network which courts have recognized as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions MPEP 2106.06 (d)(II). Clam 1 is therefore ineligible. (step 2b – significantly more)
Dependent claims 20 is rejected as it does not remedy the deficiencies of claim 19. Claims 20 is an abstract idea as it is directed towards an observation as it is further directed to the step of identifying.
It is advised to 1) to provide an additional limitation that does not fall within a grouping of abstract ideas and 2) show that the additional limitation reflects an improvement that has a technical explanation provided in the specification.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the collaborator activities" in line 5 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 fail to resolve the deficiencies of claim 1 and are therefore also rejected.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the collaborator activities" in line 9 of claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12-18 fail to resolve the deficiencies of claim 1 and are therefore also rejected.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the collaborator activities" in lines 8-9 of claim 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12-18 fail to resolve the deficiencies of claim 1 and are therefore also rejected.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-12, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 20240403341 by Berglund et. al. (hereafter Berglund).
Claim 1:
Berglund discloses:
“A method for identifying selected portions of a set of content objects for use in generating a large language model (LLM) prompt, the method comprising:”[ identifying selected portions of a set of content objects (0014, subset of relevant text chunks)for use in generating a large language model (LLM) prompt (0014, llm to generate an answer description)]
“identifying a content management system (CMS) wherein collaboration activities occur over time and over content objects maintained in the CMS, and wherein the CMS maintains a historical record of occurrences of the collaborator activities over the content objects;”[ identifying a content management system (CMS) (fig. 1 110 content management system) wherein collaboration activities occur over time (0018, interaction data for content can include for example..etc. ) and over content objects maintained in the CMS (0019, items), and wherein the CMS maintains a historical record of occurrences of the collaborator activities (0019, user dwell time) over the content objects (0019, user dwell time within the item…etc.)]
“receiving a natural language query from a CMS collaborator; and”[ receiving a natural language query (0021, users’ queries) from a CMS collaborator (0021, users’; 0019 user)]
“using CMS metadata to reduce a larger corpus of content objects to a smaller corpus of context passages.”[ using CMS metadata (0014, text embeddings ) to reduce a larger corpus of content objects (0014, plurality of content items) to a smaller corpus of context passages (0014, at least a portion of the subset of relevant text chunks)]
Claim 2:
Berglund discloses:
“The method of claim 1, wherein the smaller corpus is formed by: in a first phase, identifying selected constituents from the larger corpus of content objects based on CMS metadata; and in a second phase, identifying selected passages from the selected constituents.”[ wherein the smaller corpus (0014,at least a portion of the subset of relevant text chunks) is formed by: in a first phase (0014 a set of text chunks corresponding to the plurality of content items are retrieved, where each text chunk has an associated text embedding;), identifying selected constituents (0014, a set of text chunks corresponding to the plurality of content items are retrieved) from the larger corpus of content objects(0014, plurality of content items) based on CMS metadata (0014, text embeddings); and in a second phase (0014, from the set of text chunks, a subset of relevant text chunks is identified based at least in part on similarity between the associated text embeddings and a query embedding that represents the user query), identifying selected passages (0014, the subset of relevant text chunks) from the selected constituents (0014, a set of text chunks)]
Claim 11:
Claim 11 recites similar limitations as that of claim 1 except that it is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium instead of a method. The limitations of claim 11 are rejected under similar rationale as that of claim 1. Berglund further discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium in at least figure 5.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 recites similar limitations as that of claim 2 except that it is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium instead of a method. The limitations of claim 12 are rejected under similar rationale as that of claim 2. Berglund further discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium in at least figure 5.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 recites similar limitations as claim 1 except that it is directed to a system and not a method. The limitations of claim 19 are rejected under similar rationale as that of claim 1. Berglund further discloses a storage medium and processor in at least figure 5.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 recites similar limitations as claim 2 except that it is directed to a system and not a method. The limitations of claim 20 are rejected under similar rationale as that of claim 2. Berglund further discloses a storage medium and processor in at least figure 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. 20240265041 by Rennie et. al. in particular figure 6 and 0030-0034. Much like Berglund text embeddings/text chunks generation phase, there is a phase where there is a tagging one or more of the multiple content portions. Rennie does not appear to disclose at least the elements of claim 3.
U.S. 12008332 by Gardner et. al. in particular fig. 3. However, much like Berglund text embeddings/text chunks generation phase, the step 302 is merely an extraction phase. Gardner does not appear to disclose at least the elements of claim 3.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-730pm Eastern.
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, Robert Beausoliel can be reached at 571-272-3645. 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.
/MICHAEL PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2167