DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-32 are presented for examination.
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 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1:
The claim recites the “generating” step, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “controllers configured to generate …” nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed by a human using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, 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 because, in particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a “one or more memory devices”, “one or more controllers”, “obtaining” step, and “providing” step. The “memory devices” and “controllers” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, the “obtaining” step and “providing” step amount to no more than mere data gathering and output which is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). 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 because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a “memory devices” and “controllers” are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the “obtaining” step and “providing” steps are “receiving or transmitting data over a network” which the courts have found to be a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 13:
The claim recites the “generating” steps, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “controllers configured to generate …” nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed by a human using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, 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 because, in particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a “one or more memory devices”, “one or more controllers”, “obtaining” steps, and “providing” steps. The “memory devices” and “controllers” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, the “obtaining” steps and “providing” steps amount to no more than mere data gathering and output which is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). 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 because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a “memory devices” and “controllers” are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the “obtaining” steps and “providing” steps are “receiving or transmitting data over a network” which the courts have found to be a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). The claim is not patent eligible
As per claim 19:
The claim recites the “generating” step, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “controllers configured to …generate …” nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed by a human using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, 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 because, in particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a “memory system”, “one or more controllers”, “obtaining” step, and “providing” steps. The “memory system” and “controllers” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, the “obtaining” step and “providing” steps amount to no more than mere data gathering and output which is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). 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 because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a “memory system” and “controllers” are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the “obtaining” step and “providing” steps are “receiving or transmitting data over a network” which the courts have found to be a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). The claim is not patent eligible
As per claim 23:
The claim recites the “generating” step and “selecting” step, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “controllers configured to …generate …” nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed by a human using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, 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 because, in particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a “memory system”, “one or more controllers”, “obtaining” step, and “providing” step. The “memory devices” and “controllers” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, the “obtaining” step and “providing” steps amount to no more than mere data gathering and output which is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). 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 because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a “memory system” and “controllers” are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the “obtaining” step and “providing” steps are “receiving or transmitting data over a network” which the courts have found to be a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). The claim is not patent eligible
As per claim 27:
The claim recites the “communication” steps, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “controllers configured to generate …” nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed by a human using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, 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 because, in particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a “host system”, “memory apparatus”, “interface” and “one or more controllers”. The “host system”, “memory apparatus”, “interface” and “controllers” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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 because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a “host system”, “memory apparatus”, “interface” and “controllers” are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible
For claims 2-12, claims 14-18, 20-22, 24-26, and 28-32:
Similarly to the above, the further claimed limitations neither integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor sufficient to mount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
There is no prior art of record can be used to rejected the claims at this time. The patentability of the claims will be determined when the claims are amended to overcome the above-mentioned rejections under 35 USC 101. It appears that the claims would be allowable if amended to overcome the 101 rejections and that the features of parallel processing of the tokens in conjunction with the shifting of the generation of predicted intermediate tokens, using lower parameter precision/fidelity to the near memory system, to be included in each of the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Palaniappan et al., US 2025/0377812, teaches previously generated tokens are used to predict the next output token [see para, 0027].
Jain et al., US 2025/0321995, teaches a permission-based AI system responses [see the tile, para. 0036].
Klein et al., US 2025/0307238, teaches a large langue model that has a high number of model parameters [see para.0036].
Tseng et al., US 2025/0045523, teaches generating a predicted token based on the output of the fixed sequence of token [see para. 0024].
Bernstein et al., US 2025/0021842, teaches large language models trained to generated a response in response to a prompt [see para. 0001].
Zhong et al., US 2025/0363353, teaches that verification of predicted token can occurred faster than regressively generating the next toke [see para. 0161].
Jiao et al., US 2024/0046037, teaches independently and in parallel predicted tokens generating [see para. 0042].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEP T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM - 4:00PM.
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, Arpan P. Savla can be reached at 571-272-1077. 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.
/HIEP T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137