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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the application filed on 20 September 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. The rejections are as stated below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted in this application on 20 December 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. The initialed copies of the1449 are enclosed herewith.
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 non-statutory subject matter. In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
The instant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 1 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for managing and executing a task based on a stored task specification and an execution context.
The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent method claim 1, recites the limitations of receiving a task performance request; retrieving a stored task specification corresponding to the task performance request; generating a task implementation request comprising the stored task specification and an execution context; generating a task implementation corresponding to the task implementation request, the task implementation comprising a sequence of task execution commands; and causing execution of the sequence of task execution commands.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers steps directed to “mental processes”. Claim 1, includes steps that reasonably can be performed by a human (pen and paper). For example, a human can perform the steps recited above in claim 1, by receiving a request, looking up instructions and planning and directing a sequence of action to be carried out), (observing, evaluating and making decisions). “Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” also constitute an abstract idea. Accordingly, the above recitations, and the claim as a whole, recite an abstract idea involving mental processes.
Therefore, it is clear that exemplary independent claim 1 recites limitations that fall under the category of abstract ideas related to “mental processes”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Accordingly, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of a processor to perform the steps (see claim 17). The computer/processor in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data (see Applicant’s specification ¶¶ 0039-0042). This generic computer limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. 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. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the processor at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to the statutory category of invention of claims 1, 9 and 17. Furthermore, dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea.
Claim 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20, recite a task context, a performance requirement, latency maximum, a plurality of subtasks, a first task execution command executed in parallel with a second task execution command, a command to execute a large language model (LLM) and an availability of the LLM. These limitations further define the abstract and are rejected under the same rational of claim 1.
Lastly, the dependent claims 7, 8, 14 and 15, recite the additional elements of a large language model (LLM) to perform the steps and are rejected under the same rational of claim 1 above. The claims merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a large language model (LLM), and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer to merely carry out the abstract idea itself, it constitutes a well understood, routine and conventional activity as claimed.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wei et al. (US 20230244938 A1), hereinafter “Wei”.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, Wei discloses a computer-implemented method and corresponding system, comprising the steps of
receiving a task performance request (¶¶ 0057-0059); retrieving a stored task specification corresponding to the task performance request (¶¶ 0003, 0059 and 0084); generating a task implementation request comprising the stored task specification and an execution context (¶¶ 0076-0082); generating a task implementation corresponding to the task implementation request, the task implementation comprising a sequence of task execution commands; and causing execution of the sequence of task execution commands (abstract and ¶ 0117).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, Wei discloses the task performance request comprises a task context (¶¶ 0004, 0038 and 0228).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19, Wei discloses the task performance request comprises a performance requirement (¶¶ 0049 and 0221).
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 20, Wei discloses the performance requirement comprises a latency maximum (¶ 0050).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Wei discloses the stored task specification comprises a plurality of subtasks (¶ 0060).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Wei discloses the task implementation comprises a first task execution command executed in parallel with a second task execution command (¶¶ 0122 and 0137).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Wei discloses the task implementation comprises a command to execute a large language model (LLM) (¶¶ 0037 and 0084).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Wei discloses the execution context comprises an availability of the LLM (¶¶ 0044-0045).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ward, Jr. US 9479382 B1 discloses “Methods and apparatus for deadline-based pricing and scheduling of network-accessible resources are disclosed. A system includes resources organized into a plurality of pools, and a resource manager. The resource manager receives a task execution query comprising a specification of a task to be performed for the client. The specification includes the task's deadline and a budget constraint. In response, the resource manager generates a task execution plan comprising using a resource from a selected pool to perform at least part of the task, where the pool is selected based at least partly on a pricing policy of the pool. In response to an implementation request for the task, the resource manager schedules at least a part of the task using a particular resource from the selected pool”.
Shih et al. US 9720732 B1 discloses "Methods and systems for optimization of task execution are disclosed. A definition of a task is received. A plurality of parameter values for execution of the task are selected based on an execution history for a plurality of prior tasks performed for a plurality of clients. The plurality of parameter values are selected to optimize one or more execution constraints for the execution of the task. The execution of the task is initiated using one or more computing resources configured with the selected parameter values".
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hani Kazimi whose telephone number is (571) 272-6745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on (571) 270-1836. 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.
Respectfully Submitted
/HANI M KAZIMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights