CTNF 18/731,139 CTNF 83062 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This action is responsive to the application filed May 31, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and are presenting for examination. Examiner Notes Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. Drawings 06-22 AIA 5. The drawings are objected to because they are blurry and unable to be read. Specifically, figures 4-6 and 9 are pixelated, making it difficult to see and/or unable to be deciphered . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA 6. Claim s 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: As to claim 1 (line 9), claim 10 (line 12), and claim 16 (line 10), recite to include the following limitation, “the vectorized database” appears lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. As to claim 20 (line 3), recites to include the following limitation, “the plurality of follow up questions” appears lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims and should be changed to, for example, -- 20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim [[ 16]] 19 – instead. Claims 2-9, and 11-15, and 17-19 are also objected to for being depended upon the objection of base claims 1, 10, and 16 respectively . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 7. 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. 07-34-01 8. Claims 1-20 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. As to claim 1 (lines 3 and 9), claim 10 (lines 8 and 12), and claim 16 (lines 6 and 10) recite to include the following limitation “that” is unclear. Please clarify. As to claim 2 (line3), claim 11 (line 4), and claim 17 (line 4) recite to include the following limitation “that” is unclear. Please clarify. As to claim 4 at line 1 recites to include the following limitation “that” is unclear. Please clarify. As to claim 7 at line 3 recites to include the following limitation “that” is unclear. Please clarify. Claims 3, 5, 6, 8,9, 12-15, and 18-20 depend on the rejected claims 1, 10, and 16 respectively are also inherited the same issue as noted above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 9. 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. 10. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent Claims 1, 10, and 16 recite: A method, comprising: [a] receiving, in a user prompt of a graphical user interface, a question in a natural language ; [b] converting the question into a first data query; [c] determining that a first data source from a plurality of data sources contains first debug data associated with the first data query; [d] retrieving the first debug data from the first data source; [e] adding the question and the first debug data to a current conversation session; [f] performing a lookup on the vectorized database to retrieve a plurality of entries that are relevant to the current conversation session; [g] generating a prompt from the plurality of entries; [h] sending the prompt to a Large Language Model (LLM) ; [i] receiving , from the LLM, a generated output corresponding to the prompt , the generated output including a follow up question in the natural language ; and [j] presenting , in the graphical user interface , the first debug data as a response to the question and the follow up question as a suggested debug path . Step 2A – prong 1: The claims recite the limitation of: A method, comprising: [b] converting the question into a first data query; [c] determining that a first data source from a plurality of data sources contains first debug data associated with the first data query; [d] retrieving the first debug data from the first data source; [e] adding the question and the first debug data to a current conversation session; [f] performing a lookup to retrieve a plurality of entries that are relevant to the current conversation session; [g] generating a prompt from the plurality of entries; These limitations of steps [b]–[g] as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1. Step 2A – Prong 2: Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements “ A system comprising: one or more processors; a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program executable by the one or more processors, the program comprising sets of instructions”, “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program executable by one or more processors, the program comprising sets of instructions”, “on the vectorized database”, “a Large Language Model (LLM)”, “from the LLM ”, “ in the graphical user interface ”, step [a], step [h] “ sending the prompt to” , step [i] “ receiving a generated output corresponding to the prompt , the generated output including a follow up question in the natural language” , and step [j] “presenting the first debug data as a response to the question and the follow up question as a suggested debug path” . The additional elements of “ A system comprising: one or more processors; a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program executable by the one or more processors, the program comprising sets of instructions”, “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program executable by one or more processors, the program comprising sets of instructions”, “on the vectorized database”, “a Large Language Model (LLM)”, “from the LLM ”, and “ in the graphical user interface ” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely use a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the additional limitation of step [a], step [h] “ sending the prompt to” , step [i] “ receiving a generated output corresponding to the prompt , the generated output including a follow up question in the natural language” , and step [j] “presenting the first debug data as a response to the question and the follow up question as a suggested debug path” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering and displaying data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Step 2B: Under Step 2B, the claims do 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 elements of “ A system comprising: one or more processors; a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program executable by the one or more processors, the program comprising sets of instructions”, “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program executable by one or more processors, the program comprising sets of instructions”, “on the vectorized database”, “a Large Language Model (LLM)”, “from the LLM ”, and “ in the graphical user interface ” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, and for the limitations of step [a], step [h] “ sending the prompt to” , step [i] “ receiving a generated output corresponding to the prompt , the generated output including a follow up question in the natural language” , and step [j] “presenting the first debug data as a response to the question and the follow up question as a suggested debug path” the courts have identified mere data gathering and displaying are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Regarding to per claims 2, 11, and 17, the limitation “converting the follow up question into a second data query; determining a second data source from the plurality of data sources that contains second debug data corresponding to the second data query; retrieving the second debug data from the second data source” recites further mental process. Furthermore, the additional element of “ in the graphical user interface ” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely use a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Lastly, the additional element of “ presenting the second debug data as a response to the follow up question ” which is displaying data that is nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts have identified mere data gathering and displaying are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Regarding to per claims 3, 12, and 18, the limitation “further comprising: adding the follow up question and the second debug data to the current conversation session” and “ updating to include current conversation session ” recites further mental process. Furthermore, the additional elements of “ in the graphical user interface” and “the vectorized database ” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely use a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Lastly, the additional element of “ receiving a selection of the follow up question ” which is gathering data that is nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts have identified mere data gathering and displaying are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Regarding to claim 4, the limitation “wherein determining that a first data source from a plurality of data sources contains first debug data associated with the first data query includes providing the first data query to a data source LLM,” recites further mental process and the additional elements of “ wherein the output generated by the data source LLM is the first data source ” which is further define data output that is nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts have identified mere data gathering and displaying are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Regarding to claim 5, the limitation “further comprising updating the vectorized database to include the current conversation session” recites further mental process, which is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Regarding to claim 7, the limitation “ wherein each entry in the plurality of entries is associated with a unique previous conversation session and the plurality of entries are previous conversation sessions that are similar to the current conversation session. ” which is further define data that is nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts have identified mere data gathering and displaying are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Regarding to claim 13, the limitation “ wherein each entry in the plurality of entries is associated with a unique previous conversation session. ” which is further define data that is nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts have identified mere data gathering and displaying are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Regarding to per claims 8, 14, and 19, the limitation “ wherein the generated output includes a plurality of follow up questions, one of which is the follow up question. ” which is further define data output that is nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts have identified mere data gathering and displaying are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Regarding to per claims 9, 15, and 20, the limitation “further comprising: generating a confidence score for each of the plurality of follow up questions” and “selecting a subset of the plurality of follow up questions based on the confidence score” recites further mental process. Furthermore, the additional element of “ in the graphical user interface ” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely use a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Lastly, the additional element of “ presenting the subset of follow up questions ” which is displaying data that is nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts have identified mere data gathering and displaying are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Allowable Subject Matter 11. The prior arts of record or made of record, taken alone or in combination do not disclose and/or suggest, and/or motivation to combine, “adding the question and the first debug data to a current conversation session; performing a lookup on the vectorized database to retrieve a plurality of entries that are relevant to the current conversation session; generating a prompt from the plurality of entries; sending the prompt to a Large Language Model (LLM); receiving, from the LLM, a generated output corresponding to the prompt, the generated output including a follow up question in the natural language; and presenting, in the graphical user interface, the first debug data as a response to the question and the follow up question as a suggested debug path” as limitations recited in as such manners as in independent claims. Conclusion 12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon (cited on 892 form) is considered pertinent to application disclosure. SHARMA et al. (US-20250238628-A1) disclose facilitating augmentation to algorithmic heuristic expressions for flow builder conditionals, involves performing model that makes inference about conditional prompt along with base prompt for asking large language model for prediction to obtain predicted evaluation. Hsu et al. (US-12566926-B2) disclose efficient language model editing using a contextual prompt generator. Serban et al. (US-12340191-B1) disclose using a large language model (LLM) to output confident scoring of codes. Kulkarni et al. (US-20240311652-A1) disclose leverage a specialized markup language interface for generating prompts for generative models. 13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARINA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8 am to 4: 30 pm ET). 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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached on (571)-272-6799. 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. /MARINA LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/731,139 Page 2 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/731,139 Page 3 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/731,139 Page 4 Art Unit: 2192
Prosecution Insights