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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is improper because the core inventive concept arises from their cooperation as a unified machine pipeline as literally recited in the claim, which cannot be realized using isolated conventional operations. The claim defines an execution sequence: identify the target application scenario via the entry webpage retrieve partitioned composite user data belonging to the scenario select and invoke matched tools guided by scenario-specific tool description files (REMARKS, on page 1, 2nd paragraph – page 3, 5th paragraph).
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is improper because the newly amended claim 1 is still directed to abstract idea.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method performed on generic data processing hardware comprising the following limitations:
Determine the target scenario from where and how the user query is entered.
Retrieve scenario-specific user data, including historical dialogue context.
Select and invoke a target tool using candidate tools plus tool description files.
Generate answer information from the tool result.
These steps describe Scenario-based conversational agents with collecting, processing, and analysis of data relating to input query. Courts have consistently held that such concepts—collecting information, analyzing or processing data, and adjusting a model or system based on the results—are abstract ideas. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (data collection, analysis, and display are abstract ideas); BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (filtering content is an abstract idea).
Here, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of collecting and processing data, analyzing that data, and using that analysis to update a model.
Conclusion: Claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2: Does the claim recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter?
The claim recites implementation on generic data processing hardware and routine computer components. There is no recitation of a specific improvement to the functioning of the computer or any particular hardware configuration that improves the performance of the device or the speech recognition system.
Each limitation can be viewed as conventional computer functions or generic data processing:
Determine a scenario (basic decision-making).
Retrieve user data based on historic data (generic data collection and decision-making).
Selecting a tool (basic decision-making using standard data analysis)
Generating an answer (basic decision-making).
The claim thus fails to recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (holding that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is insufficient).
Therefore, claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to independent claim 11, claim 11 is similar to claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 12, 14 and 16, the claims do not recite any technical details about how the model is used differently from conventional models. Even though the claim references the feature of inputting into a tool LLM, these are recited functionally, without technical details about how they are implemented in a non-conventional way. Accordingly, the limitations of the Claims are not sufficient to add significantly more to improve technological functionality.
With respect to dependent claims 3, 5, 7, 13, 15, 17, claims are also directed to processes which manipulate data which are processes which can be performed by a human and implemented by a generic computer. Accordingly, the limitations of the Claims are not sufficient to add significantly more to improve technological functionality.
With respect to dependent claims 8-10 and 18, the claims include features of calculating the expected values accordingly and adjusting the parameters for obtaining a language model in the future, however do not recite any technical details about how the model is trained differently from conventional models. Even though the claim references training a large language model, these are recited functionally, without technical detail about how they are implemented in a non-conventional way. Accordingly, the limitations of the Claims are not sufficient to add significantly more to improve technological functionality.
With respect to dependent claim 19, the claim does not recite any technical details about how the model is used differently from conventional models. Even though the claim references inputting into a tool LLM and calculating accuracy of a tool LLM, these are recited functionally, without technical details about how they are implemented in a non-conventional way. Accordingly, the limitations of the Claims are not sufficient to add significantly more to improve technological functionality.
With respect to dependent claim 20, the claim does not recite any technical details about how the model is used differently from conventional models. Even though the claim references calculating accuracy of a tool LLM, these are recited functionally, without technical details about how they are implemented in a non-conventional way. Accordingly, the limitations of the Claims are not sufficient to add significantly more to improve technological functionality.
As such, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Thus, the rejection is maintained at this time. Please see the rejection below for the whole analysis.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One: The independent claim 1 recites “determining a target application scenario corresponding to user query information based on an entry webpage where the user query information is input, wherein different application scenarios correspond to different entry webpages; acquiring target user data in the target application scenario based on user data in different application scenarios, wherein the user data in the different application scenarios are stored separately, and user data in each of the different application scenarios comprises user historical dialogue information and a historical execution path and a historical state of a used tool in the each application scenario; selecting and invoking a target tool in the target application scenario based on candidate tools and description files of the candidate tools, to process the user query information and the user data to obtain a tool execution result; and generating, based on the tool execution result, answer information corresponding to the user query information.”.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the limitation of “determining…”, “acquiring…”, “selecting and invoking…” and “generating” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a collecting and calculating data, mental process and human organizing of activities. More specifically, when the user provides information including a query, an answer is derived using the necessary solutions accordingly based on the user's previous conversation records and related information.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as performing a generic computer function and being used as an applying) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, there additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B — Claims Do Not Recite an Inventive Concept That Transforms the Mental Process into Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
The claims add generic, well-understood computer components (memory and processor) and broadly recite use of “application”, “tool” without describing any specific, unconventional structure, algorithmic detail, data structure, or system architecture that provides a concrete technical improvement in computer functionality.
Applying Alice step two and relevant Federal Circuit precedent:
The recitation of conventional computer components (memory and processor) performing routine functions does not supply an inventive concept.
The mere invocation of “application”, “tool” without particularity does not demonstrate an unconventional machine or technique or a specific improvement in computer technology.
The claims recite high-level, result-oriented steps (e.g., “acquire,” “determine,” “obtain”, “selecting”, “invoking”, “generating”) that describe mental processes rather than specific technical means for performing those processes.
Because the claims lack limitations that tie the mental-process steps to a particular way of achieving a technological improvement (for example, a novel model architecture, specialized data representation, unique training regimen that yields demonstrable technical performance gains, a specialized streaming/decoding pipeline that reduces latency by a quantifiable amount, or hardware/software co-design), the additional elements do not transform the mental processes into significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1 and 11 fail to recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 12, 14 and 16, the claims do not recite any technical details about how the model is used differently from conventional models. Even though the claim references the feature of inputting into a tool LLM, these are recited functionally, without technical details about how they are implemented in a non-conventional way. Accordingly, the limitations of the Claims are not sufficient to add significantly more to improve technological functionality.
With respect to dependent claims 3, 5, 7, 13, 15, 17, claims are also directed to processes which manipulate data which are processes which can be performed by a human and implemented by a generic computer. Accordingly, the limitations of the Claims are not sufficient to add significantly more to improve technological functionality.
With respect to dependent claims 8-10 and 18, the claims include features of calculating the expected values accordingly and adjusting the parameters for obtaining a language model in the future, however do not recite any technical details about how the model is trained differently from conventional models. Even though the claim references training a large language model, these are recited functionally, without technical detail about how they are implemented in a non-conventional way. Accordingly, the limitations of the Claims are not sufficient to add significantly more to improve technological functionality.
With respect to dependent claim 19, the claim does not recite any technical details about how the model is used differently from conventional models. Even though the claim references inputting into a tool LLM and calculating accuracy of a tool LLM, these are recited functionally, without technical details about how they are implemented in a non-conventional way. Accordingly, the limitations of the Claims are not sufficient to add significantly more to improve technological functionality.
With respect to dependent claim 20, the claim does not recite any technical details about how the model is used differently from conventional models. Even though the claim references calculating accuracy of a tool LLM, these are recited functionally, without technical details about how they are implemented in a non-conventional way. Accordingly, the limitations of the Claims are not sufficient to add significantly more to improve technological functionality.
Conclusion — Rejection
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (collecting and calculating data and mental processes) and failing to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEONG-AH A. SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5933. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-3PM.
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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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.
Seong-ah A. Shin
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/SEONG-AH A SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
