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, 3-12 and 14-20 are pending in this application.
Claims 2 and 13 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b)
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to rejections have been fully considered but are moot
Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, the Applicant argues that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is improper because the claims addresses this specific technical problem by implementing a score-difference-driven dynamic sample screening mechanism: a sample is selected only when the score difference exceeds the threshold, thereby actively selecting high-difference samples, reducing redundant training, accelerating model convergence, and conserving computational resources. Notably, the claimed invention achieves these efficiency gains without compromising training effectiveness-the selectively constructed training dataset enables optimal or comparable performance with fewer training samples. The claimed invention is not merely "applying" a generic concept on a computer. Rather, it implements a specific data processing rule tailored to large language model distillation: using score difference as a criterion for sample selection (REMARKS, on page 12, 4th paragraph- page 14, 1st 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.
Applicant’s remarks rely on purported improvements, such as actively selecting high-difference samples, reducing redundant training, accelerating model convergence, and conserving computational resources. However, even if such improvements are described in the specification, they are not reflected in the claim limitation. The claims, as currently recited, are directed merely to collecting and calculating scores. Thus, the alleged improvements do not alter the nature of the claimed subject matter, which amounts to performing data collection and calculation using generic computer technology. Therefore, claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. With respect to independent claims 12 and 20, claims 12 and 20 are similar to claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims 3-11 and 14-19 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.
As such, claims 1, 3-12 and 14-20 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.
Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to rejections have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-20 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 “inputting at least one sample text instruction into a target large language model to obtain at least one standard response text, and inputting the at least one sample text instruction into a large language model to be trained to obtain at least one predicted response text, wherein the target large language model is a pre-trained large language model; determining a first sample response text from the at least one standard response text according to a score difference between a first quality score of a standard response text of the at least one standard response text and a second quality score of a predicted response text of the at least one predicted response text; and generating a first target training sample according to the first sample response text and a sample text instruction of the at least one sample text instruction corresponding to the first sample response text, and constructing a training dataset according to the first target training sample, wherein the training dataset is used to train the large language model to be trained; wherein determining the first sample response text from the at least one standard response text according to the score difference between the first quality score of the standard response text of the at least one standard response text and the second quality score of the predicted response text of the at least one predicted response text comprises: using a standard response text obtained by inputting any sample text instruction of the at least one sample text instruction into the target large language model as a first response text, and using a predicted response text obtained by inputting the any sample text instruction into the large language model to be trained as a second response text: determining a score difference between a first quality score of the first response text and a second quality score of the second response text as a score difference to be evaluated: and in a case where the score difference to be evaluated is greater than a score difference threshold, using the first response text as the first sample response text”.
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 20, the limitation of “inputting…”, “determining…”, “generating…” and “constructing” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, could be performed in the human mind and requires no more than a performing of generic computer functions (e.g. collecting data, calculating). More specifically, a sample text is scored using two different models, and based on the difference between the two scores, another sample is created to train the model. See Alice and Data Engine (abstract idea of storing, organizing, and retrieving information / manipulating data).
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 “training model” 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 “training model” 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” “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, 12 and 20 fail to recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter.
With respect to dependent claim 3, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 4, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 5, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 6, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 7, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 8, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 9, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 10, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 11, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 14, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 15, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 16, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 17, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 18, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 19, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion — Rejection
Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (mental processes) and failing to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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
Prosecution Insights