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 filed on 06/28/2024 are accepted.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 Analysis
The claim is directed to a statutory category (Method).
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 1 recites the following limitations (of which bolded limitations constitute a ‘mental process’ that covers performance of the limitations in the human mind).
A method comprising: accessing a first textual content that was generated by a large language model (LLM); performing a narrative point of view (NPOV) detection operation on a first portion of the first textual content to identify a first NPOV corresponding to the first portion of the first textual content; based on an output, of the NPOV detection operation, that indicates that the first NPOV does not meet one or more NPOV criteria, modifying the first portion of the first textual content to generate a modified textual content; submitting the modified textual content to the LLM, causing the LLM to generate a second textual content; wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices.
As a note, steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas
because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation,
evaluation, judgement, and opinion (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
With respect to the particular limitations (that were bolded above), these steps can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and/or
opinion. For example the particular limitations encompass: 1) evaluating a first portion of the first textual content and making a judgment that there is a first NPOV that corresponds to the first portion of the first textual content, 2) evaluating output and making a judgement that the first NPOV does not meet one or more NPOV criteria and making a judgement to apply modification to the first portion of the first textual content to generate the modification.
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim recites additional elements:
“accessing a first textual content that was generated by a large language model (LLM)”, “submitting the modified textual content to the LLM” – these additional elements are considered ‘data gathering’, which the courts have identified as insignificant extra solution activity . See MPEP 2106.05(g) for “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”. The courts have identified these types of
elements/limitations are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application.
“causing the LLM to generate a second textual content”, “performed by one or more computing devices” – these additional elements are considered merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2016.05(f). The courts have identified these types of
elements/limitations are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application.
101 Analysis Step 2B
The claim recites the additional elements:
“accessing a first textual content that was generated by a large language model (LLM)”, “submitting the modified textual content to the LLM” – these additional elements, as discussed above, are considered ‘data gathering’, which the courts have identified as insignificant extra solution activity and the courts have identified these types of limitations/elements to be insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
“causing the LLM to generate a second textual content”, “performed by one or more computing devices” – these additional elements, as discussed above, are considered merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The courts have identified these types of limitations/elements to be insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claims 2-11
Dependent claims 2-11 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (i.e. mental step limitations that recite ‘replace’, ‘delete’, ‘determining’, ‘applying’, ‘identify’). Additional elements such as the following do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
‘Transmitting’, ‘accessing’, ‘submitting’, ‘forwarding’ – these elements/limitations are insignificant extra solution activities (for data gathering, selecting a data source of type of data to be manipulated). The courts have identified these types of elements/limitations are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional types of elements also are insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claim 12
With regards to claim 12, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1, It is noted that it recites additional elements of ‘one or more non-transitory storage media storing instructions’; however these elements/limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The courts have identified
these types of elements/limitations are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application and also have found these types of elements as insufficient to
qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claims 13-20
Dependent claims 13-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (i.e. mental step limitations that recite ‘replace’, ‘delete’, ‘determining’, ‘applying’, ‘identify’). Additional elements such as the following do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
‘Transmitting’, ‘accessing’, ‘submitting’, ‘forwarding’ – these elements/limitations are insignificant extra solution activities (for data gathering, selecting a data source of type of data to be manipulated). The courts have identified these types of elements/limitations are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional types of elements also are insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
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, 4, 6, 8-10, 12, 15, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu (US Patent: 12572752, issued: Mar. 10, 2026, filed: May 9, 2023).
With regards to claim 1, Liu teaches a method (Fig 4, column 4, lines 17-29: a method is implemented using a processor and memory) comprising:
accessing a first textual content that was generated by a large language model (LLM) (column 4, lines 5-16, column 4, lines 40-45: a LLM is implemented to generate text);
performing a narrative point of view (NPOV) detection operation on a first portion of the first textual content to identify a first NPOV corresponding to the first portion of the first textual content (column 4, lines 40-55, column 8, lines 59-65, column 9, lines 30-35: the text (having a portion of content) is checked against a selected point of view / ‘writing perspective’ that was selected (such as ‘first person’, ‘second person’ or ‘third person’);
based on an output, of the NPOV detection operation, that indicates that the first NPOV does not meet one or more NPOV criteria , modifying the first portion of the first textual content to generate a modified textual content (column 4, lines 47-50, claim 16 of Liu: a process is implemented to check the writing type conditions against generated text to identify if a condition such as perspective/NPOV is not satisfied, the generated content is modified/refined by removing/filtering out the portion using correction information);
submitting the modified textual content to the LLM, causing the LLM to generate a second textual content; wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices (column 4, lines 50-67: the text that is filtered is then iteratively provided again to the model to generate a second textual content as refined content , which is checked against the writing style and can be determined to considered as ‘satisfying’ the writing type conditions.).
With regards to claim 4. The method of Claim 1, Liu teaches wherein the one or more NPOV criteria requires that each NPOV corresponding to each portion of the first textual content matches a target NPOV, wherein determining that the first NPOV, corresponding to the first portion of the first textual content, does not meet the one or more NPOV criteria comprises: determining that the first NPOV, corresponding to the first portion of the first textual content, is different than the target NPOV (Fig. 5A, : each selected ‘Person’ point of view (ref 125) is a target NPOV , and the textual content having NPOV is checked against the target for compliance, and it can be determine if the target NPOV condition is not satisfied/met).
With regards to claim 6. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: the combination of Liu and Draelos teaches prior to accessing the first textual content: accessing a third textual content generated by the LLM; identifying a third NPOV corresponding to a second portion of the third textual content; in response to determining the third NPOV does not meet the one or more NPOV, modifying the second portion of the third textual content to generate a second modified textual content; and submitting the second modified textual content to the LLM, wherein the LLM generates the first textual content based on submission of the second modified textual content to the LLM, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, Fig. 2 and Fig. 5a of Liu (where a loop is performed to access and determine NPOV of content to generate subsequent iteration of content (such as first textual content) based on earlier analysis of NPOV . Thus due to the looping, a third content could have be interpreted to be content accessed earlier than the first text content and the generated content based on third content would be interpreted as a claimed first textual content (that will undergo subsequent access/analysis), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 8. The method Claim 1, wherein: Liu teaches the NPOV detection operation involves applying a set of NPOV detection rules to the first textual content to identify the first NPOV; the method further comprising, in response to determining that the first NPOV has not been identified by applying the set of NPOV detection rules, applying a language recognition model to the first textual content to identify the first NPOV (Fig. 2 and 5A, logic to check writing type conditions that have one or more selectable conditions in a group having NPOV ‘person’ condition and one or more conditions such as an associated ‘Language’ condition (interpreted as NPOV detection rules) are checked against the generated text content’s NPOV. Should the generated text not meet the conditions/rules of selected target NPOV and other conditions associated with selected target NPOV, then the text is corrected/filtered such that it is then reapplied to the model).
With regards to claim 9. The method of Claim 1, Liu teaches further comprising: iteratively modifying sets of textual content to generate corresponding sets of modified textual content, and applying the LLM to the sets of modified textual content until the one or more NPOV are met, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (Liu was explained to teach that textual content is filtered and regenerated through iteration until writing type conditions with NPOV criteria(s) are met/satisfied), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 10. The method of Claim 1, Liu teaches wherein modifying the first portion of the first textual content to generate the modified textual content is performed by at least one of: applying a set of rule-based narrative conversion operations; or applying a language model-based narrative conversion operation, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (logic rules to filter out content are considered/interpreted as the rule based narrative conversion operations), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 12, Liu teaches one or more non-transitory storage media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more computing devices, cause: accessing a first textual content that was generated by a large language model (LLM); performing a narrative point of view (NPOV) detection operation on a first portion of the first textual content to identify a first NPOV corresponding to the first portion of the first textual content; based on an output, of the NPOV detection operation, that indicates that the first NPOV does not meet one or more NPOV criteria, modifying the first portion of the first textual content to generate a modified textual content; submitting the modified textual content to the LLM, causing the LLM to generate a second textual content, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 15. The one or more storage media of Claim 12, Liu teaches wherein the one or more NPOV criteria requires that each NPOV corresponding to each portion of the first textual content matches a target NPOV, wherein determining that the first NPOV, corresponding to the first portion of the first textual content, does not meet the one or more NPOV criteria comprises: determining that the first NPOV, corresponding to the first portion of the first textual content, is different than the target NPOV, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 17. The one or more storage media of Claim 12, Liu teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more computing devices, further causes: prior to accessing the first textual content: accessing a third textual content generated by the LLM; identifying a third NPOV corresponding to a second portion of the third textual content; in response to determining the third NPOV does not meet the one or more NPOV, modifying the second portion of the third textual content to generate a second modified textual content; and submitting the second modified textual content to the LLM, wherein the LLM generates the first textual content based on submission of the second modified textual content to the LLM, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 6, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 19. The one or more storage media of Claim 12, Liu teaches wherein: the NPOV detection operation involves applying a set of NPOV detection rules to the first textual content to identify the first NPOV; wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more computing devices, further causes, in response to determining that the first NPOV has not been identified by applying the set of NPOV detection rules, applying a language recognition model to the first textual content to identify the first NPOV, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 8, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 20. The one or more storage media of Claim 12, Liu teaches wherein modifying the first portion of the first textual content to generate the modified textual content is performed by at least one of: applying a set of rule-based narrative conversion operations; or applying a language model-based narrative conversion operation, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 10, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US Patent: 12572752, issued: Mar. 10, 2026, filed: May 9, 2023) in view of Draelos (US Patent: 12086563, issued: Sep. 10, 2024, filed: Aug. 4, 2021).
With regards to claim 2. The method of Claim 1, Liu teaches wherein modifying the first portion of the first textual content … the first NPOV …. , as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Liu does not expressly teach … comprises at least one of: replacing a first word corresponding to the first NPOV with a second word corresponding to a second NPOV; or deleting the first word corresponding to the first NPOV.
Yet Draelos teaches … at least one of: replacing a first word corresponding to the first NPOV with a second word corresponding to a second NPOV; or deleting the first word corresponding to the first NPOV (column 33, lines 50-60: a first word such as ‘I’ in “I got up” in a first person can be replaced with a second word in a different NPOV (third person) “they” in “they got up”, based on logic deeming that it should not comply with a desired NPOV. It is noted a different part of a second portion having word ‘my’ in ‘my couch’ is identified to be replaced to be consistent with the desired NPOV by changing to: “their’ in “their couch”. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Liu’s ability to modify a first portion corresponding to NPOV, such that the modification would have specifically include at least a replacement of a first word corresponding to the first NPOV with a second word corresponding to a second NPOV, as taught by Draelos. The combination would have allowed an improved way to apply rephrasing of text while taking into account perspective of first, second or third person.
With regards to claim 3. The method of Claim 1, the combination of Liu and Draelos teaches wherein the one or more NPOV criteria requires consistency across each NPOV corresponding to each portion of the first textual content, and wherein determining that the NPOV, corresponding to the first portion of the first textual content, does not meet the one or more NPOV criteria comprises: determining that the first NPOV, corresponding to the first portion of the first textual content, is different than a third NPOV corresponding to a second portion of the first textual content, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 13. The one or more storage media of Claim 12, the combination of Liu and Draelos teaches wherein modifying the first portion of the first textual content comprises at least one of: replacing a first word corresponding to the first NPOV with a second word corresponding to a second NPOV; or deleting the first word corresponding to the first NPOV, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 14. The one or more storage media of Claim 12, the combination of Liu and Draelos teaches wherein the one or more NPOV criteria requires consistency across each NPOV corresponding to each portion of the first textual content, and wherein determining that the NPOV, corresponding to the first portion of the first textual content, does not meet the one or more NPOV criteria comprises: determining that the first NPOV, corresponding to the first portion of the first textual content, is different than a third NPOV corresponding to a second portion of the first textual content, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 5, 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US Patent: 12572752, issued: Mar. 10, 2026, filed: May 9, 2023) in view of Beauchamp (US Application: US 2024/0256762, published: Aug. 1, 2024, filed: Mar. 20, 2023).
With regards to claim 5. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: Liu teaches determining that a second NPOV in the second textual content meets the one or more NPOV criteria; and … to determining the second NPOV in the second textual content meets the one or more NPOV criteria, transmitting the second textual content.
However Liu does not expressly teach … in response to determining the second NPOV in the second textual content meets the one or more NPOV criteria, transmitting the second textual content to a requesting entity.
Yet Beauchamp teaches … in response to determining [text content meeting requirements/criteria], transmitting the second textual content to a requesting entity (Fig. 7, paragraphs 0006 and 0007, 0078, 0080, 0099, 0110 and 0116: the iterative operations are performed against text content based upon user request/instructions (subsequent prompts are generated to assess against the users’ instructions), and generated output (such as second textual content) is forwarded/sent back to client).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Liu’s ability to determine the second NPOV in the second textual content meeting the one or more NPOV criteria (determining text content meeting requirements), such that the in response to the determining of content meeting requirement(s), the content can be sent back to the requesting entity, as taught by Beauchamp. The combination would have allowed generation of text output that is cohesive with respect to a user’s editing request/instructions (Beauchamp, paragraph 0007).
With regards to claim 11. The method of Claim 1, the combination of Liu and Beauchamp teaches further comprising: prior to accessing the first textual content: receiving a user request from a client device; generating a first prompt based on the user request; and submitting the first prompt to the LLM to obtain the first textual content; and after determining that the second textual content meets the one or more NPOV criteria, forwarding the second textual content to the client device, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 16. The one or more storage media of Claim 12, the combination of Liu and Beauchamp teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more computing devices, further causes: determining that a second NPOV in the second textual content meets the one or more NPOV criteria; and in response to determining the second NPOV in the second textual content meets the one or more NPOV criteria, transmitting the second textual content to a requesting entity, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US Patent: 12572752, issued: Mar. 10, 2026, filed: May 9, 2023) in view of Seegan et al (US 2020/0057811, published: Feb. 20, 2020, filed: Aug. 1, 2019)
With regards to claim 7. The method of Claim 1, Liu teaches wherein: the NPOV detection operation involves applying a set of NPOV detection rules to the first textual content to identify the first NPOV; the method further comprising, in response to determining that the first NPOV has been identified by applying the set of NPOV detection rules … (Fig 5A: logic to check writing type conditions that have one or more selectable conditions in a group having NPOV ‘person’ condition and one or more conditions such as an associated ‘Language’ condition (interpreted as NPOV detection rules) are checked against the generated text content’s NPOV).
However Liu does not expressly teach …. refraining from applying a language recognition model to the first textual content for identifying the first NPOV.
Yet Seegan et al teaches it is well known to refraining from applying a language recognition model to the first textual content (a statistical model is not used and the other rule based module is used instead based upon confidence value) …
.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Liu’s ability to apply NPOV detection rules/logic to identify NPOV, such that the NPOV detection logic (text processing) for the first textual content would have been modified to opt for text processing using a model, as taught by Seegan et al. The combination would have allowed optimized application of either rule or model(s) through confidence bases analysis.
With regards to claim 18. The one or more storage media of Claim 12, Liu and Seegan et al teaches wherein: the NPOV detection operation involves applying a set of NPOV detection rules to the first textual content to identify the first NPOV; wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more computing devices, further causes, in response to determining that the first NPOV has been identified by applying the set of NPOV detection rules, refraining from applying a language recognition model to the first textual content for identifying the first NPOV, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 7, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baughman et al (US Application: US 2022/0129636): This reference teaches identifying/analyzing POV and fact checking of a summary text.
Brink et al (US Application: US 2022/0360668): This reference teaches performing sentence segmentation from prompting data.
Zamora (US Patent: 4773039): This reference teaches identifying replacement text while keeping in compliance with first, second or third person wording/phrasing.
Vuong et al (US Application: US 20150104766): This reference teaches applying corrections to text using grammar analysis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights