DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on June 18, 2024.
Claims 1-15 are pending in the application. As such, claims 1-15 have been examined.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on July 25, 2024. The drawings were amended on August 16, 2024. These drawings have been accepted and considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in KOREA on 06/21/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 10-2023-0079943 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. See “Document indicating retrieval request was unsuccessful” of 11/21/2024 which explains via a PRIORITY DOCUMENT EXCHANGE FAILURE STATUS REPORT that during an attempt by the Office to electronically retrieve, under the priority document exchange program, the foreign application 10-2023-0079943 to which priority is claimed has FAILED on 11/21/2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 9 in lines 7 and 10, recite “a natural language”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “the natural language”. Claims 2-8 and 10-15 depend from claims 1 or 9, either directly or indirectly, and therefore inherit this objection.
Claims 2 and 10 in line 3, recite “an object”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “a second object”. Claims 3 and 11 depend from claims 2 or 10 and therefore inherit this objection.
Claims 3 and 11 in line 3, recite “an object”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “the object”.
Claims 4 and 12 in line 3, recite “output structured data”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “output the structured data”.
Claim 9 in line 10, recites “and structured data”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “and the structured data”. Claims 10-15 depend from claim 9, either directly or indirectly, and therefore inherit this objection.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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.
Claims 1 and 9 in lines 5 and 8, recite “the generative natural language model”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-8 and 10-15 depend from claims 1 or 9, either directly or indirectly, and therefore inherit this rejection.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they recite “A computer program which is stored in a computer readable storage medium to allow a computer to execute the design automation method…” where the computer readable storage media is not claimed to be non-transitory. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “computer readable storage media” includes signals per se, rendering claim 8 subject matter ineligible. It is noted that Applicant’s statement in page 18 of the originally filed specification stating “For example, the computer readable medium may include a magnetic medium, an optical recording medium, and a memory.” is not considered to be a “special definition or disavowal” as it is merely a statement directed to claim construction itself and thus does not clearly set forth a special definition of the claim term that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01(IV).
In order to overcome the present rejection, the Applicant is advised to amend the claims by using the following terminology: "non-transitory computer readable storage medium." Such example terminology has been also found in the Official Gazette 1351 OG 212.
Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
A design automation method, comprising:
receiving a task prompt which is a text expressing a design authoring task to be performed with a natural language, from a user;
acquiring structured data from the generative natural language model by inputting the task prompt to a trained generative natural language model with a natural language as an input and the structured data as an output; and
acquiring a design result from design software by inputting the acquired structured data to the design software.
The claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. For example,
“receiving a task prompt which is a text expressing a design authoring task to be performed with a natural language, from a user” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening to another person ask for the designing of something,
“acquiring structured data from the generative natural language model by inputting the task prompt to a trained generative natural language model with a natural language as an input and the structured data as an output” in the context of this claim encompasses a person using a language model as a tool to perform a task which yields program code for a specific purpose,
“acquiring a design result from design software by inputting the acquired structured data to the design software” in the context of this claim encompasses a person feeding the program code into a program which generates a design.
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 these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a trained generative natural language model
a design software.
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. 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 elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims do not add limitations that would either integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or could help the Claim as a whole to amount to significantly more than the Abstract idea identified for the Independent Claim.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
wherein a purpose of the design authoring task includes
generation of an object or modification of an object and
in the acquiring of structured data,
a purpose, a target object, and a necessary property of the design authoring task are identified by the generative natural language model and the structure data is acquired thereby.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“generation of an object or modification of an object” in the context of this claim encompasses a person creating or changing some part of a design,
“a purpose, a target object, and a necessary property of the design authoring task are identified by the generative natural language model and the structure data is acquired thereby” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring that a purpose, a target object, and a property are included in the program code output by the language model.
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 these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a generative natural language model.
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. 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 elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
wherein when the purpose of the design authoring task is to modify the object,
information about an object to be modified is additionally input to the generative natural language model.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“the purpose of the design authoring task is to modify the object” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring an object is modified,
“information about an object to be modified is additionally input to the generative natural language model” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring that some information is proper for the program code and provided to the model.
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 these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a generative natural language model.
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. 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 elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
wherein the generative natural language model is pre-trained, but is not finely tuned and
in the acquiring of structured data, an instruction prompt to set a type and a form of the structured data is input to the generative natural language model in addition to the task prompt.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the generative natural language model is pre-trained, but is not finely tuned” in the context of this claim encompasses a person selecting the model which has been pre-trained in some generic way but has not been fine-tuned,
“an instruction prompt to set a type and a form of the structured data is input to the generative natural language model in addition to the task prompt” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring that a type and a form is proper for the program code.
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 these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a generative natural language model.
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. 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 elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
wherein the structured data has a previously defined data schema structure.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the structured data has a previously defined data schema structure” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring that a previously defined type and a form is proper for the program code.
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 no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no 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. 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 no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
wherein the structured data is a database table, Excel sheets, JSON, or XML data.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the structured data is a database table, Excel sheets, JSON, or XML data” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the program code output is the appropriate code.
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 no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no 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. 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 no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
A computer program which is stored in a computer readable storage medium to allow a computer to execute the design automation method of claim 1.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“execute the design automation method of claim 1” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening to another person ask for the designing of something and then designing it as per the first claim above.
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 these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a computer readable storage medium
a computer.
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. 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 elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vierra (US Patent Pub. No. 20240370595 A1, as supported by 63/499,884 filed 5/3/2023), in view of Watson et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20240319970 A1), hereinafter Watson.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Vierra teaches a design automation method and apparatus (Vierra in [0002] teaches using machine learning algorithms for generating interior design plans),
comprising:
[claim 9 only] an input/output interface (Vierra in [0146] teaches using input/output interfaces)
receiving a task [prompt] which is a text expressing a design authoring task to be performed [with a natural language] (Vierra in [0110, Fig. 3] teaches a task includes a specific activity or action item that needs to be completed as part of the interior design project)
and
[claim 9 only] a processor (Vierra in [0146] teaches using a computer which includes a processor)
acquiring a design result from design software by inputting [the acquired structured data] to the design software (Vierra in [0118] teaches the machine learning model generates an interior design plan based on various inputs, and the resulting 3D model provides a detailed, virtual visualization of the physical space, including its layout, furniture arrangement, materials, and colors).
Vierra teaches the task and expressing a design authoring task.
Vierra does not teach, however, Watson teaches
receiving a [task] prompt which is a text [expressing a design authoring task] to be performed with a natural language, from a user (Watson in [0006] teaches receiving an inquiry (prompt) from a user, and using a language model to generate corresponding executable code, and in [0009] teaches the information may include a respective textual description);
acquiring structured data from the generative natural language model by inputting the task prompt to a trained generative natural language model with a natural language as an input and the structured data as an output (Watson in [0006] teaches generation of executable code (structured data) by a language model, based on an inquiry (prompt) into the language model, and executable code (structured data) is generated by the language model (output)).
Watson is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of using a language model to generate corresponding executable code. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vierra further in view of Watson to allow for generation of executable code by a language model, based on an inquiry into the language model. Motivation to do so would allow for different output types, such as single answers, tables, graphs, or any other structured output medium that is generated through code (JSON, .csv, etc.) as an optional instruction to follow (Watson [0082]).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Vierra, as modified above, teaches the design automation method and apparatus according to claims 1 and 9.
Vierra, as modified above, teaches the design authoring task, the acquiring of structured data, and the generative natural language model.
Vierra, as modified above, does not teach, however Watson further teaches
wherein a purpose of the [design authoring task] includes
generation of an object or modification of an object (Watson in [0092, Fig. 9] teaches generating dynamic dashboards (an object))
and
in the [acquiring of structured data], a purpose, a target object, and a necessary property of the [design authoring task] are identified by the [generative natural language model] (Watson in [0092, Fig. 9] teaches generating dynamic dashboards (purpose), and freely moved around as an floating object to a new position on the screen each container (target object), such as top five items or type of chart (necessary property))
and the structure data is acquired thereby (Watson in [0006] teaches generation of executable code (structured data) by a language model, based on an inquiry (prompt) into the language model, and executable code (structured data) is generated by the language model (output)).
Watson is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of using a language model to generate corresponding executable code. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vierra, as modified above, further in view of Watson to allow for generating dynamic dashboards. Motivation to do so would allow for different output types, such as single answers, tables, graphs, or any other structured output medium that is generated through code (JSON, .csv, etc.) as an optional instruction to follow (Watson [0082]).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Vierra, as modified above, teaches the design automation method and apparatus according to claims 2 and 10.
Vierra, as modified above, teaches the design authoring task, and the generative natural language model.
Vierra, as modified above, does not teach, however Watson further teaches
wherein when the purpose of the [design authoring task] is to modify the object (Watson in [0084] teaches a user may provide follow-up instructions to update the dynamically generated content, either to change the style, display, type of output, or to provide further guidance),
information about an object to be modified is additionally input to the [generative natural language model] (Watson in [0084] teaches a user may provide follow-up instructions to update the dynamically generated content, either to change the style, display, type of output, or to provide further guidance).
Watson is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of using a language model to generate corresponding executable code. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vierra, as modified above, further in view of Watson to allow for updating dynamic dashboards. Motivation to do so would allow for different output types, such as single answers, tables, graphs, or any other structured output medium that is generated through code (JSON, .csv, etc.) as an optional instruction to follow (Watson [0082]).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Vierra, as modified above, teaches the design automation method and apparatus according to claims 1 and 9.
Vierra, as modified above, does not teach, however Watson further teaches
wherein the structured data has a previously defined data schema structure (Watson in [0082] teaches the prompt can allow for different output types, such as single answers, tables, graphs, or any other structured output medium that is generated through code (JSON, .csv, etc.) as an optional instruction to follow).
Watson is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of using a language model to generate corresponding executable code. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vierra, as modified above, further in view of Watson to allow for outputting structured output. Motivation to do so would allow for different output types, such as single answers, tables, graphs, or any other structured output medium that is generated through code (JSON, .csv, etc.) as an optional instruction to follow (Watson [0082]).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Vierra, as modified above, teaches the design automation method and apparatus according to claims 6 and 14.
Vierra, as modified above, does not teach, however Watson further teaches
wherein the structured data is a database table, Excel sheets, JSON, or XML data (Watson in [0082] teaches the prompt can allow for different output types, such as single answers, tables, graphs, or any other structured output medium that is generated through code (JSON, .csv, etc.) as an optional instruction to follow).
Watson is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of using a language model to generate corresponding executable code. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vierra, as modified above, further in view of Watson to allow for outputting tables or JSON code. Motivation to do so would allow for different output types, such as single answers, tables, graphs, or any other structured output medium that is generated through code (JSON, .csv, etc.) as an optional instruction to follow (Watson [0082]).
Regarding claim 8, Vierra, as modified above, teaches the design automation method of claim 1.
Vierra, as modified above, does not teach, however Watson further teaches
computer program which is stored in a computer readable storage medium to allow a computer to execute (Watson in [0037] teaches using one or more non-transitory computer readable media having instructions stored thereon, and instructions include executable code that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the processors to carry out steps necessary).
Watson is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of using a language model to generate corresponding executable code. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vierra, as modified above, further in view of Watson to allow for using one or more non-transitory computer readable media. Motivation to do so would allow for different output types, such as single answers, tables, graphs, or any other structured output medium that is generated through code (JSON, .csv, etc.) as an optional instruction to follow (Watson [0082]).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vierra, in view of Watson, in view of Moghaddam et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20250095008 A1) hereinafter Moghaddam.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Vierra, as modified above, teaches the design automation method and apparatus according to claims 1 and 9.
Vierra, as modified above, teaches the design software, the generative natural language model, and the natural language input.
Vierra, as modified above, does not teach, however Watson further teaches
so as to output structured data which is understandable by the [design software] from the [natural language input] (Watson in [0082] teaches the prompt can allow for different output types, such as single answers, tables, graphs, or any other structured output medium that is generated through code (JSON, .csv, etc.) as an optional instruction to follow).
Watson is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of using a language model to generate corresponding executable code. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vierra, as modified above, further in view of Watson to allow for output of structured data. Motivation to do so would allow for different output types, such as single answers, tables, graphs, or any other structured output medium that is generated through code (JSON, .csv, etc.) as an optional instruction to follow (Watson [0082]).
Vierra, as modified above, does not teach, however Moghaddam teaches
wherein the [generative natural language model] is finely tuned (Moghaddam in [0005] teaches fine-tuning a pre-trained natural language processing model).
Moghaddam is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of using pre-trained natural language processing models. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vierra, as modified above, further in view of Moghaddam to allow for fine-tuning a pre-trained natural language processing model. Motivation to do so would allow for an iterative cycle where design concepts and user feedback are automated and integrated in parallel with the concept development process, thereby providing the design team with more data to better assess and select valuable concepts (Moghaddam [0031]).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vierra, in view of Watson, in view of Li et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20240104906 A1), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Vierra, as modified above, teaches the design automation method and apparatus according to claims 1 and 9.
Vierra, as modified above, teaches the acquiring of structured data, and the generative natural language model.
Vierra, as modified above, does not teach, however Watson further teaches
in the [acquiring of structured data], an instruction prompt to set a type and a form of the structured data is input to the [generative natural language model] in addition to the task prompt (Watson in [0082] teaches the prompt can allow for different output types, such as single answers, tables, graphs, or any other structured output medium that is generated through code (JSON, .csv, etc.) as an optional instruction to follow).
Watson is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of using a language model to generate corresponding executable code. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vierra, as modified above, further in view of Watson to allow for output of structured data. Motivation to do so would allow for different output types, such as single answers, tables, graphs, or any other structured output medium that is generated through code (JSON, .csv, etc.) as an optional instruction to follow (Watson [0082]).
Vierra, as modified above, does not teach, however Li further teaches
wherein the [generative natural language model] is pre-trained, but is not finely tuned (Li in [0050] teaches pre-training a natural language transformer model (without fine tuning))
Li is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of natural language transformer models. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vierra, as modified above, further in view of Li to allow for pre-training a natural language transformer model without fine tuning. Motivation to do so would allow for performing the traceability processing on the first model according to the association relation may perform analysis after the model is deployed to hardware, and thus an interpretation result obtained based on the analysis provides a possibility for traceability of the model and increases data support (Li [0049]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J. MUELLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1875. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm (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, Daniel C. Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
PAUL MUELLER
Examiner
Art Unit 2657
/PAUL J. MUELLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2657
/DANIEL C WASHBURN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2657