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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/31/2024 is considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawing submitted on 07/31/2024 is considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
1-5, 8-15, and 18-24, are currently pending in the application and among them claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent claims and have been amended. Claims 21-24 have been added as new and claims 6-7 and 16-17 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/14/2026 with respect to “Rejection of the Claims Under 35 U.S.C. §101” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. However, applicant’s argument with respect “Rejection of the Claims Under 35 U.S.C. §102” have been fully considered and persuasive and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Below is the examiner response to applicant arguments with respect to Claims 1-20, rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §101:
Applicants Arguments: The USPTO's current eligibility guidance instructs that claims must be evaluated as a whole and should not be oversimplified by disregarding meaningful technical limitations. The guidance further recognizes that a claim integrates an alleged judicial exception into a practical application where the claim reflects a particular technological solution or improvement described in the Specification. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.05(a).
Here, amended claim 1 reflects the disclosed improvement by requiring the computation and use of an interaction-specific success metric based on follow-up-query counts in determining an adjusted input for the LLM. Accordingly, considered as an ordered combination, claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and is not directed to a judicial exception.
New dependent claims 21 and 22 provide still further implementation detail concerning use of the success metric to select an interaction pattern and use of the selected interaction pattern in generating the adjusted query. These claims provide additional patent-eligible subject matter and further reflect the particular technological implementation described in the Specification.
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1, as amended, and the claims depending therefrom are directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Claims 11 and 20 are amended to recite the same or similar features and recite eligible subject matter for similar reasons. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 20, and the claims depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner Response: Examiner with all due respect disagrees with applicants simple interpretation associated with the argument with respect to: 1) claim integrates an alleged judicial exception into a practical application where the claim reflects a particular technological solution or improvement, described in the Specification. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.05(a); 2) amended claim 1 reflects the disclosed improvement by requiring the computation and use of an interaction-specific success metric based on follow-up-query counts in determining an adjusted input for the LLM; 3) New dependent claims 21 and 22 provide additional patent-eligible subject matter and further reflect the particular technological implementation.
With respect to arguments, 1) claim integrates an alleged judicial exception into a practical application where the claim reflects a particular technological solution or improvement, described in the Specification, examiner would like to point out that, claims are interpreted broadly in light of the specification, without importing any limitation from specification (See MPEP 2111.01 I, "Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. Also see MPEP 2111.01 II, "Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitation that are not part of the claim. Superguide Corp. V. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004).).
With respect to supporting arguments based on , MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), the MPEP recites “In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The claims 1, 11, and 20, do not reflect improvement of computer and/or device and/or LLM functionality/capabilities, instead of merely invoking computer and/or device as a tool. Examiner clearly stated in the previous the office action on the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 20, that independent claims judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps are well-understood, routing, and conventional activities and are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool (i.e. generic computer receiving a request, then selecting a request from history database, similar to the request and then providing an answer with the selected request). Therefore, the limitation "by the device", is generally apply the abstract idea without limitation specifying how the device function to achieve the results. The limitation of "large language model" does not provide any meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of judicial exception to a field of use or technology environment (neural network) since LLM itself is not being improved but the input to the LLM is. Further, as stated in the office action, the use of processor, memory and network interface to achieve well-understood, routine, conventional activities are considered as mental process (merely use the device/computer as a tool) since the steps are recited at a high level of generality.
With respect to supporting arguments based on, MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), the MPEP recites, “if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement.” However, currently pending claims do not reflect the improvement as disclosed in the specification.
With respect to arguments 2), amended claim 1 reflects the disclosed improvement by requiring the computation and use of an interaction-specific success metric based on follow-up-query counts in determining an adjusted input for the LLM, examiner again respectfully disagree. Improvement of an Input to LLM, where the steps are considered as mental process and/or well well-understood, routing, and conventional activities, does not reflect the improvements of LLM itself, unless the LLM itself is being adjusted or modified or refined to accommodate the improvement based on the input.
Further the amended limitation is incorporated from the dependent claims 6-7, which were similarly rejected in the previous office action, as mental process and/or well-understood, routing, and conventional activities and are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely using a computer as a tool. Therefore, incorporating the previously rejected limitation as an amendment does not change the claims improvement consideration of the independent claims 1, 11, and 20, by the examiner.
With respect to arguments 3), New dependent claims 21 and 22 provide additional patent-eligible subject matter and further reflect the particular technological implementation, examiner again respectfully disagree.
New Claims 21 and 22, recites steps which similarly are mental process and/or well well-understood, routing, and conventional activities, does not reflect the improvements of LLM itself as like independent claims 1, 11, and 20. Claims 21 and 22, limitation are recited in an additional further selection and storing steps before the providing steps. However, claims 21 and 22 do not include any further additional elements reflecting the improvement of the device or LLM itself, besides recitation of additional mental process and/or well-understood, routing, and conventional activities, since the recitations are in a high level of generality by merely using computer/device as a tool.
Therefore, applicant arguments with respect to claims rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not persuasive and the rejection remain same.
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.
Claims1, 11, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s), receiving, at a device, a query from a user for input to a large language model; matching, by the device, a pattern associated with the query with one or more prior chat interactions between the large language model and one or more other users; generating, by the device, an adjusted query based on the query on the one or more prior chat interactions, and on a success metric associated with the one or more prior chat interactions and computed based on a count of follow up queries in the one or more chat interactions; and providing, by the device, an answer to the adjusted query from the large language model to the user", as drafted is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting "device" and "large language model" nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically
being formed in the mind. For example, but for the recitation "device" and "large language model" language, "receive", "matching" "generating" and "providing" in the context of this claims encompasses a person verbally receiving from a second person an initial request to provide an address for an entity. Upon recalling successes on correctly providing direction without follow-up queries, for the past queries associated with a direction for the entity address, provide the other person with the entity’s address and direction.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls with the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, in claim the claim 1, recitation of -"receiving at a device a query matching by the device " generating by the device. and "providing by the device are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool (i.e. generic computer receiving a request, then selecting a request from history database, similar to the request and then providing an answer with the selected request). Therefore, the limitation "by the device", is generally apply the abstract idea without limitation specifying how the device function to achieve the results. The limitation of "large language model" does not provide any meaningful limitation beyond generally linking .
the use of judicial exception to a field of use or technology environment (neural network). Similarly in Claim 11, the recitation of processor, memory, network interfaces for processing, storing and retrieving information of the recited steps are, are well- understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Similarly in Claim 20, the recitation of non-transitory computer-readable media and device are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool (i.e. generic computer receiving a request, then selecting a request from history database, similar to the request and then providing an answer with the selected request). The limitation of "large language model" similarly does not provide any meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of judicial exception to a field of use or technology environment (neural network).
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 11, and 20, do not include any other 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 device, non-transitory computer-readable media, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f)). The use of processor, memory and network interface to achieve the results is well- understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which are recited at a high level of generality. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, not enough to qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP § 2106.05(d))
The use of "large language model" does not provide any meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of judicial exception to a field of use or technology environment (neural network). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP $ 2106.05(h)).
When considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instruction to apply an exception, well-understood, routine, conventional activities and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 1, 11, and 20 are not patent eligible.
With respect to Claims 2 and 12, limitation wherein the one or more prior chat interactions include at least one follow up query to an answer provided by the large language model to the one or more other users similarly, other than reciting "large language model" nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being formed in the mind. For example, the person's past conversation with other people where the person provided the other people with a response associated with an entity
address and direction to a request for the entity address, included follow-up query prior to providing associated with an entity address and direction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls with the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Claims 3 and 13, limitation wherein the device generates the adjusted query based further in part on one or more prior chat interactions between the user and the large language model" similarly, other than reciting "device" and "large language model" nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being formed in the mind. For example, a person verbally receives from a second person an initial request to provide a direction for an address. However, upon recalling past conversation with other people where the person provided the other people with a response associated with an entity address and direction to a request for the entity address where the entity's address is same as the address of second person's request. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls with the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Claims 4 and 14, limitation "wherein the device matches the query to the one or more prior chat interactions based on their semantic similarity", similarly, other than reciting "device" nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically
being formed in the mind. For example, a person verbally receives from a second person an initial request to provide a direction for an address. However, upon recalling past conversation with other people where the person provided the other people with a response associated with an entity address and direction to a request for the entity address where the entity's address is same as the address of second person's request. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls with the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Claims 5 and 15, limitation "wherein the device generates the adjusted query in part by merging the query with another query in the one or more prior chat interactions" similarly, other than reciting "device" nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being formed in the mind. For example, a person verbally receives from a second person an initial request to provide a direction for an address. However, upon recalling past conversation with other people where the person provided the other people with a response associated with an entity address and direction to a request for the entity address where the entity's address is same as the address of second person's request. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls with the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Claims 8 and 18, limitation, "maintaining, by the device, an interactions registry that includes the one or more prior chat interactions", similarly, other than reciting "device" nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being formed in the mind. For example, the person who has a sharp memory can remember the past conversations and queries from other people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls with the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Claims 9 and 19, limitation, "wherein the query requests information regarding a computer network" similarly, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being formed in the mind. For example, a person verbally receives from a second person an initial request to help set up his GPS for the direction of an address since he could not find the address in his GPS. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls with the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Claim 10, limitation, "wherein the query requests information regarding a particular networking entity in the computer network", similarly, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being formed in the mind. For example, a person verbally receives from a second person an initial request to help set up his GPS for the direction of an address since he could not find the address in his GPS. If a claim
limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls with the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Claim 21 and 23, limitation, “wherein generating the adjusted query comprises: selecting, based on the success metric, an interaction pattern associated with at least one of the one or more prior chat interactions; and adjusting the query based on the selected interaction pattern” similarly, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being formed in the mind. For example, a person verbally receives from a second person an initial request to provide an address for an entity, and upon recalling successes on correctly providing direction without follow-up queries, for the past similar queries associated with a direction for the entity address, provide the other person with the entity’s address and direction. If a claim
limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls with the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Claim 22 and 24, limitation, “storing, in a registry, the selected interaction pattern as an optimal interaction pattern, wherein generating the adjusted query comprises matching the pattern associated with the query to the optimal interaction pattern in the registry and adjusting the query based on the optimal interaction pattern” similarly, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being formed in the mind. For example, a person verbally receives from a second person an initial request to provide an address for an entity, and upon recalling successes on correctly providing direction without follow-up queries, for the past similar queries associated with a direction for the entity address, provide the other person with the entity’s address and direction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls with the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 2-5, 8-10,12-15, and 18-24, do not include any other 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 device, non-transitory computer-readable media, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f)).
The use of processor, memory and network interface to achieve the results is well- understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which are recited at a high level of generality. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, not enough to qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP § 2106.05(d))
The use of "large language model" does not provide any meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of judicial exception to a field of use or technology environment (neural network). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
When considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instruction to apply an exception, well-understood, routine, conventional activities and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 2-5, 8-10,12-15, and 18-24, are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 8-15, and 18-24 would be allowed upon overcoming the claims rejection under 101.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The inventive concept of the application is: The system learns from prior user-chat exchanges, identifies successful question patterns, and applies those patterns to new queries before asking the language model. By matching an incoming query to a stored interaction pattern, it can infer the user’s likely intent and add missing context. A success metric helps choose the best prior pattern, so the system favors prompts that historically required fewer clarifications. This reduces ambiguity and improves the chance of getting the desired answer on the first try.
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 20, Almaer et al. teach: A method comprising (Abstract: The method includes: receiving a request for retrieval of data satisfying one or more criteria, the request including at least one data request parameter; searching a database storing example queries based on the request to identify at least one matching query; providing, to a large language model (LLM), an input prompt to generate a query purporting to retrieve data satisfying the one or more criteria, the input prompt including the at least one data request parameter and the at least one matching query as an example; and receiving, from the LLM, a result including the generated query.): receiving, at a device, a query from a user for input to a large language model ([0024] The computing system includes a processor and a memory coupled to the processor. The memory stores computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, may cause the processor to: receive a request for retrieval of data satisfying one or more criteria, the request including at least one data request parameter; search a database storing example queries based on the request to identify at least one matching query; provide, to a large language model (LLM), an input prompt to generate a query purporting to retrieve data satisfying the one or more criteria…); matching, by the device, a pattern associated with the query(matching query) with one or more prior chat interactions (stored queries of the queries database) between the large language model and one or more other users (first user request may be compared with one or more user requests that are identified in the queries database) ([0090] The computing system searches the queries database based on the request to identify at least one matching query, in operation 204. In at least some implementations, the computing system may perform comparisons between the first user request and the user requests corresponding to the stored queries of the queries database to determine a closest match, or “matching” user request. That is, the first user request may be compared with one or more user requests that are identified in the queries database. A query which corresponds to a matching user request may be determined to a matching query. [0092] In some implementations, the computing system may implement a text similarity algorithm which may be used for measuring a degree to which the first user request is semantically related to each user request of the queries database.); generating, by the device, an adjusted query (modifying an input prompt to the LLM) based on the query and the one or more prior chat interactions (a previous query that was accepted by the endpoint) ([0035] The system may match a user request (e.g., a data retrieval request) to a “best” prompt template, out of a set of such templates, for an LLM. A prompt template may, for example, comprise a previous query that was accepted by the endpoint or an example of a properly constructed query for the endpoint. The matched template may then be provided in an input prompt to the LLM with instructions to generate a query for submitting to the endpoint. [0039] The retrieved previous query is provided, along with the first data request, as input to the LLM. In particular, the first data request and the retrieved previous query may be included as part of an input prompt to the LLM, with instructions for the LLM to generate a query for the endpoint. [0041] This process of instructing the LLM to generate a query corresponding to the first data request based on modifying an input prompt to the LLM may proceed iteratively until a successful response is received from the endpoint. [0066] ChatGPT is built on top of a GPT-type LLM, and has been fine-tuned with training datasets based on text-based chats (e.g., chatbot conversations). ChatGPT is designed for processing natural language, receiving chat-like inputs and generating chat-like outputs. ); and providing, by the device, an answer (response) to the adjusted query from the large language model to the user ( [0093] For example, the LLM may be instructed explicitly to use the at least one matching query as an example when generating the new query corresponding to the first user request. [0094] In operation 208, the computing system receives, from the LLM, a result including the generated query. The result may indicate information about the generated query, such as the query language, data fields, arguments, etc. The generated query may be provided to the user device as a response to the first user request. That is, the computing system may output the generated query responsive to receiving the first user request via the user device. [0101] In operation 312, the computing system receives, from the LLM, a result including the generated query. The result may indicate information about the generated query, such as the query language, data fields, arguments, etc. The generated query may be provided to the user device as a response to the first user request.).
The prior art of records alone or in combination failed to teach for independent claims 1, 11, and 20, “generating, by the device, an adjusted query based on the query, on the one or more prior chat interactions, and on a success metric associated with the one or more prior chat interactions and computed based on a count of follow up queries in the one or more prior chat interactions; and providing, by the device, an answer to the adjusted query from the large language model to the user.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art of record Porras et al. (US 10050868 B2) teach: “Multimodal Help Agent For Network Administrator” (Network management technology as disclosed herein generates and dynamically updates an intuitive, interactive visualization of a computer network in live operation. The network management technology interprets human user interactions, such as gestures, conversational natural language dialog, and combinations of gestures and natural language dialog, as network directives. The technology can implement the network directives to, for example, facilitate analysis of network activity or to respond to network security events).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, EST (IFP).
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, Paras Shah can be reached at 571-270-1650. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2653
Prosecution Insights