DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office action in response to communications received 5/13/26. Claim(s) 1, 15, and 20 has(have) been amended. Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is(are) pending and addressed below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is(are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 15, and 20 recite(s) the limitation(s) of “parsing, by the computer application, the indication of the first error to determine corrective information for remedying the first error” in claim 1 and “parse, by the computer application, the indication of the first error to determine corrective information for remedying the first error” in claims 15 and 20. This/These limitation(s), as drafted, is(are) a process (processes) that, under its (their) broadest reasonable interpretation, cover(s) performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer system”, “at least one processor”, and “at least one memory” in claim 15 and “a computer-readable medium”, “a processor”, and “a computer system” in claim 20, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic processing components does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental processes grouping.
The examiner notes that “parsing, by the computer application, the indication of the first error to determine corrective information for remedying the first error” involves subjective choices as to what is being parsed, the rules and algorithm used for parsing, and the correspondence between error and large language model prompt used, and includes the concepts of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion in claim 1 and
“parse, by the computer application, the indication of the first error to determine corrective information for remedying the first error” involves subjective choices as to what is being parsed, the rules and algorithm used for parsing, and the correspondence between error and large language model prompt used, and includes the concepts of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion in claims and 15 and 20. Thus, the claim(s) recite(s) a mental process, concepts that may be performed in the human mind, in this case being observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Additionally, the claims recite the limitation(s) parsing, by the computer application, the indication of the first error to determine corrective information for remedying the first error” in claim 1 and “parse, by the computer application, the indication of the first error to determine corrective information for remedying the first error” in claims 15 and 20, which describe(s) the concept of “parsing data”, which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as in Berkheimer. The concepts described in claim(s) 1, 15, and 20 are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in claim(s) 1, 15, and 20 of parsing data is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited including “detecting, by a computer application, an indication of a first error, the first error responsive to a command generated by a large language model (LLM) responsive to the computer application prompting the LLM with a first input” and “providing, by the computer application, the corrective information to the LLM, wherein the LLM is prompted with a second input including the corrective information” in claim 1 and
“detect, by a computer application, an indication of a first error, the first error responsive to a command generated by a large language model (LLM) responsive to the computer application prompting the LLM with a first input” and “provide, by the computer application, the corrective information to the LLM, wherein the LLM is prompted with a second input including the corrective information” in claims 15 and 20 are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processor performing a generic computer function. Generic processor limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The examiner notes that while actually performing the “remedying the first error” or using the “corrective information” to implement a “corrective action” could potentially improve the functioning of a computer, it would not be a particular solution to a specific problem (An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, see MPEP 2106.05(a), The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), but instead a generic solution to any and all possible problems. The examiner notes that “first error” and “corrective information” or “remedy” are a generic problem and solution and is equivalent to “apply it”, applying a generic “correction”, “remedy”, or solution to any and all “errors” or problems. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements fail to improve the functionality of the computer itself.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology or effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Furthermore, the applicant’s own specification details the generic nature of the computing components, which also precludes them from presenting anything significantly more ([0098-0100], fig. 3).
Claim(s) 2-14 and 16-19 do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claim(s) 2 and 16 simply obtain an input and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 3 and 17 simply detect an error and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 4 and 18 simply further detail the second input and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 5, 6, and 19 simply further detail the indication of the error and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 simply further detail the parsing and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 9 simply accesses information and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 10 simply conducts a search and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 11 simply detects and outputs an error and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 12 includes a mental process in the form of parsing and simply provides corrective information and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 13 simply obtains input and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 14 further details the indication of an error and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 1-20 is(are) therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument (see p. 2-7 of remarks) that “the recited operations are performed by a computer application, which clearly takes the recited operations out of the realm of mental processes as they are performed by a computer application and thus cannot be performed by the human mind. That is, the detecting, parsing and using steps are clearly and explicitly performed by something other than a human and thus the Examiner's rejection should be withdrawn”, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner notes that "A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process" and "examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process" (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). In this case, the parsing itself involves subjective choices as to what is being parsed, the rules and algorithm used for parsing, and the correspondence between error and large language model prompt used, and includes the concepts of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and therefore a mental process even if a computer or computer environment is used to perform the parsing. Parsing is a way of identifying what elements from a set of data are separated from other elements from the set of data for a specific purpose. This necessarily involves a thought process by the “human-in-the-loop” irrespective of any tools used and each potential “human-in-the-loop” would use different subjective criteria to parse the data based on the individuals mental process decisions. Argument is moot.
In response to applicant's argument (see p. 2-4 and 7-9 of remarks) that the claims relate to an architecture that provides a specific technical improvement to the functionality of the computer system itself, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner notes that detecting an error, parsing data for generic “corrective” information, providing the corrective information to a LLM, and prompting the LLM with “corrective” information does not improve the functioning of a computer. After the error is detected, the computer still has an error that needs to be resolved. After parsing data for “corrective” information, the generic “corrective” information is available, but the error is still unresolved. After “providing” “corrective” information, the error is still unresolved. Finally, prompting a LLM with “corrective” information also does not resolve any issues or errors and thus none of the steps improve the functioning of a computer. Instead the method detects an error, parses data, provides (i.e. transmits, submits, transfers, etc.), or moves data from one location to another, and prompts a LLM with data. None of which resolves an issue, improves the performance, efficiency, or even changes the functioning of the computer itself. After each of the steps are performed the computer will be in the same state as before the steps were performed with some data identified, parsed, and provided.
The examiner also notes that “providing, by the computer application, the corrective information to the LLM, wherein the LLM is prompted with a second input including the corrective information” in claim 1 and “provide, by the computer application, the corrective information to the LLM, wherein the LLM is prompted with a second input including the corrective information” in claims 15 and 20 are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processor performing a generic computer function. Generic processor limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The examiner notes that while actually performing the “remedying the first error” or using the “corrective information” to implement a “corrective action” could potentially improve the functioning of a computer, it would not be a particular solution to a specific problem (An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, see MPEP 2106.05(a), The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), but instead a generic solution to any and all possible problems. The examiner notes that “first error” and “corrective information” are a generic problem and solution and is equivalent to “apply it”, applying a generic “correction” or solution to any and all “errors” or problems. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements fail to improve the functionality of the computer itself. Argument is moot.
In response to applicant’s argument (see p. 9-10 of remarks) that “the claims recite significantly more under step 2B” and “the claimed combination is not well-understood, routine, or conventional”, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner notes that "detecting an indication of an error" and "prompting an LLM with an input" are conventional and well known steps and that after performing either, the computer itself will be in the same state as before those steps were performed. It will not be faster, more efficient, or have resolved the error. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology or effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Furthermore, the applicant’s own specification details the generic nature of the computing components, which also precludes them from presenting anything significantly more ([0098-0100], fig. 3). Argument is moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA P LOTTICH whose telephone number is (571)270-3738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 5712723655. 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.
/JOSHUA P LOTTICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights