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
Arguments and amendments filed 1/9/2026 have been examined.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 9, 11, 13-14, 16-17, 19, 21-22 have been amended.
In this Office Action, Claims 1-23 are currently pending.
This Office Action is Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) and the prior art rejection under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to objections to claims 6, 14, and 22 on the basis of certain informalities and the recent relevant amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 6, 14, and 22 on the basis of certain informalities have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed concerning rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to the argument:
“MPEP 2106 makes it clear that "a claim with limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind does not recite a mental process". Indeed, this section of the MPEP cites to SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm 'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 94 USPQ2d 1607 (Fed. Cir. 2010), which states that inventions that "could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human' s mind'' ( emphasis added) do not fall within the category of a mental process.
With regard to the claimed subject matter, it is not possible for a human mind by itself to implement many of the elements recited in claim 1. For example, it is just not possible for the human mind by itself to maintain content within a content management system. It is clearly not possible for the human mind by itself to execute an LLM prompt at an LLM to extract metadata. Furthermore, it is simply impossible for the human mind by itself to place metadata extracted
from the content into a metadata store. The human mind by itself simply does not have the concepts of a content management system, LLM, or metadata store as understood by the claim. As such, since the claim cannot be performed entirely in the human mind, the claim therefore pursuant to MPEP 2106 does not fall into the category of a mental process”;
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant asserts that the inventions direction towards “content management system, LLM, or metadata store” implies that the limitations “do not fall within the category of a mental process” (see above); however, the test is not whether the claim is confined to a particular field of use or technological environment, see Intellectual Ventures ILLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[a]n abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment”). The relevant question, even at the first step of the Mayo/Alice analysis, is “whether the claims are directed to an improvement in computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Here, the invention uses computer technology, but the Specification describes the claimed
solution as a scheme in collecting, storing and managing electronic records over time (see for
example specification para. [0149] “Various implementations of database 832 comprise storage media organized to hold a series of records or files such that individual records or files are accessed using a name or key (e.g., a primary key or a combination of keys and/or query clauses).”). And collecting, storing, and organizing information describes the abstract idea to
which Appellants’ claims are directed, not an improvement in computer technology. Erie
Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d at 1328 (“the heart of the claimed invention lies in creating and using
an index to search for and retrieve data ... an abstract concept”).
Thus, as the test for patent eligibility is not whether the claim is confined to a particular field of
use or technological environment, (see, again Intellectual Ventures ILLC v. Capital One Bank
(USA)), the Examiner is unconvinced the claims are directed to eligible subject matter and thus
this argument is moot.
As to the argument:
“Nor would this claim element fall within the scope of merely being a "general purpose
computer". As also stated in MPEP 2106, "a specific implementation of a solution to a problem
in the software arts" would extend a given claim beyond the scope of a mere general purpose
computer. Here, the specific implementation recited in the claim refers to content maintained
within a content management system, where a metadata template exists that stores parameters
about the metadata to be extracted from the content. The claim also recites the execution of a
LLM prompt to extract the metadata, which is then placed into a metadata store. These claimed
concepts extend far beyond just the simple concept of a general computer.
Applicant notes that the Office Action also attempts to categorize the claim as reciting
"certain methods of organizing human behavior". However, this allegation also fails, since there
is just zero mention in the claim regarding commercial or legal interactions, contracts,
advertising, marketing, sales, business relations, or the like.
For at least these reasons Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 should be deemed
statutory under3 5 USC 101. For at least some or all of these reasons, Applicant respectfully
submits that claims 2-23 should also be deemed as statutory.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant asserts above: “Here, the specific implementation recited in the claim refers to content maintained within a content management system, where a metadata template exists that stores parameters about the metadata to be extracted from the content. The claim also recites the execution of a LLM prompt to extract the metadata, which is then placed into a metadata store”;
However, simply nowhere does Applicant explain why limitations such as “stores parameters about the metadata” or “a LLM prompt to extract the metadata”(see above) would amount to a “specific implementation of a solution to a problem” as argued above. The argued limitations above of “a LLM prompt to extract the metadata” or “prompt to extract the metadata” are again, limitations drafted at an extremely high level of generality, generally directed toward “collecting, storing and managing electronic records over time”. Additionally, simply nowhere does Applicant address the previously noted recent and relevant decision Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. (CAFC Case: 23-2437) explaining that “we hold only that patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101”); where here Applicant is claiming a completely generic and unspecific “LLM” in the limitation “executing the LLM prompt at an LLM to extract the metadata” see claim 1 for example.
Again, the test is not whether the claim is confined to a particular field of use or technological environment, see Intellectual Ventures ILLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[a]n abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment”). The relevant question, even at the first step of the Mayo/Alice analysis, is “whether the claims are directed to an improvement in computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Here, the invention uses computer technology, but the Specification describes the claimed
solution as a scheme in collecting, storing and managing electronic records over time (see for
example specification para. [0149] “Various implementations of database 832 comprise storage media organized to hold a series of records or files such that individual records or files are accessed using a name or key (e.g., a primary key or a combination of keys and/or query clauses).”). And collecting, storing, and organizing information describes the abstract idea to
which Appellants’ claims are directed, not an improvement in computer technology. Erie
Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d at 1328 (“the heart of the claimed invention lies in creating and using
an index to search for and retrieve data ... an abstract concept”).
Thus, as the test for patent eligibility is not whether the claim is confined to a particular field of
use or technological environment, (see, again Intellectual Ventures ILLC v. Capital One Bank
(USA)), the Examiner is unconvinced the claims are directed to eligible subject matter and thus
this argument is moot.
Furthermore, Applicant fails to address statutory subject matter rejections under 35 USC 101 regarding claims 1-8 (regarding the lack of statutory computer hardware/processors) and claims 9-16 (regarding explicitly claiming non-transitory media), thus these claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101 under these
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites: (Step 2a, Prong One)
placing the metadata extracted from the content into a metadata store.
The limitation of placing the metadata extracted from the content into a metadata store, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a generic content management system/metadata store, and a generic “LLM prompt/LLM” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the content management system language, “placing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually moving generic “metadata” using generic “extracted” steps of generic “content” steps using a generic “store”. Additionally, note the recent and relevant decision Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. (CAFC Case: 23-2437) explaining that “we hold only that patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101”). Similarly, the limitation(s) of maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the content management system/metadata store, and a generic “LLM prompt/LLM” language, maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually receiving generic “content” and performing generic “identifying”; ”generating” and “extracting” steps. 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 within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts
performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)).
Further, these concepts also recite “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”; (such as
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal
obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) where
performing generic placing of extracted metadata of generic content using generic “identifying”; ”generating” and “extracting” steps is a method of human activity in commercial or legal interactions.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites one additional element – using a content management system/metadata store and a method to perform both the maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps. The content management system/metadata store and a method in both steps is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic content management system without a processor performing a generic computer function of “placing”) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this 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. The claim does not include additional elements that
are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include 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 element of a content management system/metadata store and a method to perform both the maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps 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. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 2, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein the LLM prompt is generated and placed into the metadata template”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein the LLM prompt is generated and placed into the metadata template” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps. Accordingly, this 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.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include 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 element of using “wherein the LLM prompt is generated and placed into the metadata template” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps 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.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 3, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein the LLM prompt is generated on a per-field basis in the metadata template”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein the LLM prompt is generated on a per-field basis in the metadata template” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps. Accordingly, this 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.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include 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 element of using “wherein the LLM prompt is generated on a per-field basis in the metadata template” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps 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.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 4, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein a feedback process is performed to update the LLM prompt based at least in part upon actual values extracted for the metadata”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein a feedback process is performed to update the LLM prompt based at least in part upon actual values extracted for the metadata” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps. Accordingly, this 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.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include 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 element of using “wherein a feedback process is performed to update the LLM prompt based at least in part upon actual values extracted for the metadata” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps 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.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 5, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein the feedback process is performed based at least in part upon a human update or an update from an LLM”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein the feedback process is performed based at least in part upon a human update or an update from an LLM” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps. Accordingly, this 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.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include 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 element of using “wherein the feedback process is performed based at least in part upon a human update or an update from an LLM” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps 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.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 6, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein fields within the metadata template are grouped together for submission of related LLM prompts to an LLM”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein fields within the metadata template are grouped together for submission of related LLM prompts to an LLM” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps. Accordingly, this 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.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include 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 element of using “wherein fields within the metadata template are grouped together for submission of related LLM prompts to an LLM” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps 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.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 7, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein dependencies are identified within the fields to group the fields together”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein dependencies are identified within the fields to group the fields together” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps. Accordingly, this 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.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include 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 element of using “wherein dependencies are identified within the fields to group the fields together” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps 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.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 8, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein an AI agent is employed to generate and execute the LLM prompt to extract the metadata”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein an AI agent is employed to generate and execute the LLM prompt to extract the metadata” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps. Accordingly, this 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.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include 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 element of using “wherein an AI agent is employed to generate and execute the LLM prompt to extract the metadata” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps 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.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites: (Step 2a, Prong One)
placing the metadata extracted from the content into a metadata store.
The limitation of placing the metadata extracted from the content into a metadata store, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a generic processor/medium, and a generic “LLM prompt/LLM” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the processor/medium language, “placing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually moving generic “metadata” using generic “extracted” steps of generic “content” steps using a generic “store”. Additionally, note the recent and relevant decision Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. (CAFC Case: 23-2437) explaining that “we hold only that patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101”). Similarly, the limitation(s) of maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the processor/medium, and a generic “LLM prompt/LLM” language, maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually receiving generic “content” and performing generic “identifying”; ”generating” and “extracting” steps. 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 within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)).
Further, these concepts also recite “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”; (such as
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal
obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) where
performing generic placing of extracted metadata of generic content using generic “identifying”; ”generating” and “extracting” steps is a method of human activity in commercial or legal interactions.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites one additional element – using processor/medium and a method to perform both the maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps. The processor/medium and a method in both steps is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of “placing”) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this 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. The claim does not include additional elements that
are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include 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 element of a processor/medium and a method to perform both the maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps 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. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 10, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein the LLM prompt is generated and placed into the metadata template”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein the LLM prompt is generated and placed
into the metadata template” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps. Accordingly, this 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.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include 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 element of using “wherein the LLM prompt is generated and placed into the metadata template” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps 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.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 11, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein the LLM prompt is generated on a per-field basis in the metadata template”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein the LLM prompt is generated on a per-field basis in the metadata template” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps. Accordingly, this 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.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include 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 element of using “wherein the LLM prompt is generated on a per-field basis in the metadata template” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps 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.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 12, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein a feedback process is performed to update the LLM prompt based at least in part upon actual values extracted for the metadata”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein a feedback process is performed to update the LLM prompt based at least in part upon actual values extracted for the metadata” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps. Accordingly, this 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.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include 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 element of using “wherein a feedback process is performed to update the LLM prompt based at least in part upon actual values extracted for the metadata” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps 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.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 13, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein the feedback process is performed based at least in part upon a human update or an update from an LLM”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein the feedback process is performed based at least in part upon a human update or an update from an LLM” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps. Accordingly, this 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.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include 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 element of using “wherein the feedback process is performed based at least in part upon a human update or an update from an LLM” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps 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.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 14, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein fields within the metadata template are grouped together for submission of related LLM prompts to an LLM”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein fields within the metadata template are grouped together for submission of related LLM prompts to an LLM” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps. Accordingly, this 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.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include 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 element of using “wherein fields within the metadata template are grouped together for submission of related LLM prompts to an LLM” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps 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.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 15, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein dependencies are identified within the fields to group the fields together”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein dependencies are identified within the fields to group the fields together” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps. Accordingly, this 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.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include 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 element of using “wherein dependencies are identified within the fields to group the fields together” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps 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.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 16, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein an AI agent is employed to generate and execute the LLM prompt to extract the metadata”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein an AI agent is employed to generate and
execute the LLM prompt to extract the metadata” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps. Accordingly, this 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.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include 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 element of using “wherein an AI agent is employed to generate and execute the LLM prompt to extract the metadata” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps 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.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim 17 recites: (Step 2a, Prong One)
placing the metadata extracted from the content into a metadata store.
The limitation of placing the metadata extracted from the content into a metadata store, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a generic processor/memory, and a generic “LLM prompt/LLM” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the processor/memory language, “placing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually moving generic “metadata” using generic “extracted” steps of generic “content” steps using a generic “store”. Additionally, note the recent and relevant decision Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. (CAFC Case: 23-2437) explaining that “we hold only that patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101”). Similarly, the limitation(s) of maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the processor/memory, and a generic “LLM prompt/LLM” language, maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually receiving generic “content” and performing generic “identifying”; ”generating” and “extracting” steps. 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 within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)).
Further, these concepts also recite “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”; (such as
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal
obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) where
performing generic placing of extracted metadata of generic content using generic “identifying”; ”generating” and “extracting” steps is a method of human activity in commercial or legal interactions.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites one additional element – using processor/memory and a system to perform both the maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps. The processor/memory and a method in both steps is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of “placing”) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this 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. The claim does not include additional elements that
are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include 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 element of a processor/memory and a system to perform both the maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps 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. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 18, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein the LLM prompt is generated and placed into the metadata template”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein the LLM prompt is generated and placed into the metadata template” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps. Accordingly, this 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.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include 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 element of using “wherein the LLM prompt is generated and placed into the metadata template” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps 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.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 19, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein the LLM prompt is generated on a per-field basis in the metadata template”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein the LLM prompt is generated on a per-field basis in the metadata template” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps. Accordingly, this 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.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include 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 element of using “wherein the LLM prompt is generated on a per-field basis in the metadata template” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps 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.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 20, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein a feedback process is performed to update the LLM prompt based at least in part upon actual values extracted for the metadata”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein a feedback process is performed to update the LLM prompt based at least in part upon actual values extracted for the metadata” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps. Accordingly, this 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.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include 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 element of using “wherein a feedback process is performed to update the LLM prompt based at least in part upon actual values extracted for the metadata” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps 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.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 21, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein the feedback process is performed based at least in part upon a human update or an update from an LLM”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein the feedback process is performed based at least in part upon a human update or an update from an LLM” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps. Accordingly, this 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.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include 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 element of using “wherein the feedback process is performed based at least in part upon a human update or an update from an LLM” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps 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.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 22, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein fields within the metadata template are grouped together for submission of related LLM prompts to an LLM”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein fields within the metadata template are grouped together for submission of related LLM prompts to an LLM” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps. Accordingly, this 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.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include 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 element of using “wherein fields within the metadata template are grouped together for submission of related LLM prompts to an LLM” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps 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.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Referring to claim 23, (Step 2a, Prong One) this further merely performs an additional abstract
mental step of “wherein dependencies are identified within the fields to group the fields together”.
(Step 2a, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only
recites the additional elements of “wherein dependencies are identified within the fields to group the fields together” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps. Accordingly, this 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.
(Step 2b)
The claim does not include 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 element of using “wherein dependencies are identified within the fields to group the fields together” steps to perform both the aforementioned maintaining; identifying; generating, and executing; and placing steps 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.
The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Additionally, Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
Directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the
four categories of patent eligible subject matter because independent claim(s) 1 does not recite
statutory computer hardware/processors (only generic methods without even generically described computer processing elements) without limitation and thus the claim(s) is/are directed to a signal per se and/or mere information in the form of data, and dependent claims 2-8 do not correct this deficiency.
See generally guidance on the New Form Paragraphs for Subject Matter Eligibility Rejections
under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (¶ 7.05.01 Rejection, 35
U.S.C. 101, Nonstatutory (Not One of the Four Statutory Categories);
Available via:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/form_para_for_2019peg_20190108.pdf
Additionally, Claim 9 (as well as claim 10-16) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “computer readable medium” encompasses signals per se. The specification discloses that the “computer readable medium” in para [0143] recites: “The term "computer readable medium" or "computer usable medium" as used herein refers to any medium that participates in providing instructions to data processor 807 for execution. Such a medium may take many forms including, but not limited to, non-volatile media and volatile media. Non-volatile media includes, for example, optical or magnetic disks such as disk drives or tape drives. Volatile media includes dynamic memory such as RAM.” (see Paragraph [0143]). A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106.03(II). It is suggested that claim 9 be amended to recite a “non-transitory” computer readable medium to overcome this rejection.
Accordingly, Claim 9 fails to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101; and claims 10-16 are also rejected as these claims do not correct the above noted deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berglund et al., US Pub. No. 2024/0403569 A1, in view of Ryan et al. US Pub. No. 2024/0330583 A1.
As to claim 1 (and substantially similar claim 9 and claim 17)
Berglund discloses
a method,
(Berglund [0081-0088])
comprising:
maintaining content within a content management system;
(Berglund [0014] The content management platform 110 enables access to content items in the content repository 150. The content management platform 110 can provide user interfaces via a web portal or application, which are accessed by the user devices 120 to enable users to create content items, view content items, share content items, or search content items. In some implementations, the content management platform 110 includes enterprise software that manages access to a company's private data repositories and controls access rights with respect to content items in the repositories.)
identifying a metadata template that stores parameters about metadata to be extracted
from the content;
(Berglund teaches selecting templates for message types and message generation including style templates/metadata to be retrieved with content items that are identified to be associated with the message, i.e. “identifying a metadata template that stores parameters about metadata to be extracted from the content”
See [0030] The user can also select a pitch template from a menu 232 or create a new pitch template, or select a pitch style from the menu 234 or create a new pitch style. A pitch template
can specify certain formatting or content parameters for the message. When a pitch template is selected, the content management platform 110 can modify message content received from the LLM to conform to the template, or can include the template in a prompt to the LLM to cause the
LLM to output conforming content. The pitch style can specify, for example, whether the message should be "formal" or "casual." When a pitch style is selected, the content
management platform 110 can include the selected style in the prompt to the LLM that instructs the LLM to generate the message content.;
see also [0038] For example, the platform can retrieve preconfigured prompt templates that correspond to each of the message types.;
see also [0049] The signals retrieved by the computer system can include metadata associated with any content items that are identified to be associated with the message. The metadata
can include, for example, a title of the content item, an author of the content item, a type of the content item (e.g., a document, a slide deck, or a video), or a description of the content item. With respect to content item description metadata, some content descriptions are generated by a user, and include information such as a summary of the content item, the author of the content item, date content as created, date content was last modified, modification history, access
rights, and so on.;
see also [0054] These prompt generation models can select message features that include, for example, length of the message, formatting of the message, style or tone of the message, or number of content items that can be associated with the message. These features can then be directly specified in a prompt.)
generating an LLM prompt based at least in part upon the parameters about the metadata
to be extracted from the content;
(Berglund teaches generating different types of prompts to the LLM, based on the type of message to be generated, i.e. “generating an LLM prompt based at least in part upon the parameters about the metadata to be extracted”;
See [0030] When a pitch style is selected, the content management platform 110 can include the selected style in the prompt to the LLM that instructs the LLM to generate the message content.;
See also [0038] The options 242 for message types can be preconfigured types of messages. Selection of these preconfigured options can cause the platform to generate different types of
prompts to the LLM, based on the type of message to be generated. For example, the platform can retrieve preconfigured prompt templates that correspond to each of the
message types.; see also [0054] These prompt generation models can select message features that include, for example, length of the message, formatting of the message, style or tone of the message, or number of content items that can be associated with the message. These features can then be directly specified in a prompt)
executing the LLM prompt at an LLM to extract the metadata;
(Berglund teaches LLM message generation based on the prompt, i.e.
See [0040] message content that is generated after the user selects the "Meeting Scheduling"
option 242A (FIG. 2E) and the "Follow Up" option 242B (FIG. 2F). As shown in the figures, content generated by the LLM or generated based on an output of the LLM is populated into the user interface 210… Although only text-based content is shown in FIGS. 2E and 2F, the LLM can be prompted to generate any of a variety of data modalities.)
Berglund does not disclose:
and placing the metadata extracted from the content into a metadata store;
however, Ryan discloses:
and placing the metadata extracted from the content into a metadata store;
(Ryan teaches a content management system which stores unique identifier(s) and report tags for the report in a database, i.e. “placing the metadata extracted from the content into a metadata store” [0126] In some embodiments, processor 104 may publish structured data report 648 and/or final report 150 using a content management system (CMS). In some embodiments, after the structured data report 648 and/or final report 150 is published, processor 104 may receive a unique identifier tied to the report. In some embodiments, processor 104 may store that unique identifier and report tags for the report in a database. In some embodiments, processor 104 may store that unique identifier and report tags for the report in a lookup table.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the time of the effective filing date to apply LLM producing reports using classification tags/tokens as taught by Ryan to the system of Berglund, since it was known in the art that Large Language Model (LLM) systems provide for determining an activity classification as a function of the structured
data, wherein the activity classification includes an activity identifier, generating a structured data report as a function of the activity identifier, and generating, a final report using a large language model (LLM), wherein structured data report and/or previous report may be stored in database described above where storing structured data report and/or previous report may include storing them based on their report tag where this may allow for related reports to be
quickly located, so that they may be linked to in a structured data report as this improves the technology of automated report or article generation by allowing for links to other media to be intelligently and quickly incorporated into the article where the system may publish structured data report and/or final report using a content management system (CMS). (Ryan [0005, 0125]).
Claim(s) 6-7, 14-15, 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berglund et al., US Pub. No. 2024/0403569 A1, in view of Ryan et al. US Pub. No. 2024/0330583 A1, in view of Fernandez et al., US Pub. No. 2025/0045516 A1.
As to claim 6, Berglund/Ryan do not disclose:
wherein fields within the template are grouped together for submission of related LLM prompts to an LLM;
however, Fernandez discloses the method of claim 1, wherein fields within the template are grouped together for submission of related LLM prompts to an LLM;
(Fernandez teaches appending the previous template recommendations to the natural language request to provide the language model context/selecting subsection of templates that are selected from among a set of available templates, i.e. wherein fields within the template are grouped together for submission of related LLM prompts to an LLM see [0048] The user can provide a natural language request in the prompt field 240 to refine the recommendation that is
provide by the language model 138. The prompt construction unit 124 appends the previous template recommendation to the natural language request to provide the language model 138 with context regarding the previous recommendation provided to the user. The language model 138 can use this information to predict a template subsection to recommend to the user that satisfies the user request. A technical benefit of this approach is that the language model 138 is
provided context by including the previous template recommendation in addition to at least a portion of the textual content from the electronic content item in the prompt. Consequently, the language model 138 is more likely to predict a relevant template subsection to recommend to the user.;
see also [0077] FIG. 6C is a flow chart of an example process 670 for providing template component recommendations in an application according to the techniques disclosed herein.
The process 670 can be implemented by the application services platform 110 shown in the preceding examples. The process 670 trains the language model and the utilizes the recommendations of a language model, such as the language model 138, to dynamically construct a template from a plurality of template subsections from one or more existing
templates to provide a customized template for the user. Rather than selecting a static, page-level template before any content is added to the electronic content item, the process 670 enables the user to begin authoring the electronic content item and the application services platform 110 uses the language model to predict which template subsections would be useful to the user based on the current textual content of the electronic content item. This approach is an
iterative process that creates a custom template that fits the user's needs for a particular electronic content item from the subsection of templates that are selected from among a set of available templates. In some implementations, the user can also choose to save the custom template layout so that the user can select that template again in the future.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the time of the effective filing date to apply appending the previous template recommendations as taught by Fernandez to the system of Berglund/Ryan, since it was known in the art that Large Language Model (LLM) systems provide for utilizing the recommendations of a language model, such as the language model to dynamically construct a template from a plurality of template subsections from one or more existing templates to provide a customized template for the user to provide for rather than selecting a static, page-level template before any content is added to the electronic content item, the process enables the user to begin authoring the electronic content item and the application services platform uses the language model to predict which template subsections would be useful to the user based on the current textual content of the electronic content item where this approach is an iterative process that creates a custom template that fits the user's needs for a particular electronic content item from the subsection of templates that are selected from among a set of available templates where the user can also choose to save the custom template layout so that the user can select that template again in the future. (Fernandez [0077]).
As to claim 7, Ryan as modified discloses the method of claim 6, wherein dependencies are identified within the fields to group the fields together
(Ryan teaches classifying a plurality of headers of desired data of the content data/ correlating a plurality of content category for templates, i.e. “dependencies are identified within the fields to group the fields together” See [0046] An "article template," as used herein, is a data structure outlining data to be populated to create an article. For example, an article template for an obituary may include an intro (e.g. name of deceased, names of family members), discussion ( e.g., cause of death, life biography), and a conclusion (e.g., name of cemetery, date of funeral) space. For example, template classifier may be trained by training data correlating a plurality of content category and data file types to corresponding article templates
see [0039] Still referring to FIG. 1, in some embodiments, importing content data 124 from data file 120 may include classifying a plurality of headers 128 to desired data 136 of the content data 124, wherein desired data 136 is related to the content category 116. "Desired data," as used herein, is content data 124 relevant to a content category 116. Classifying the plurality of headers 128 may include determining a plurality of desired data headers 140. A "desired data
header," as a used herein, is a header relevant to a content category 116).
Referring to claim 14, this dependent claim recites similar limitations as claim 6;
therefore, the arguments above regarding claim 6 are also applicable to claim 14.
Referring to claim 15, this dependent claim recites similar limitations as claim 7;
therefore, the arguments above regarding claim 7 are also applicable to claim 15.
Referring to claim 22, this dependent claim recites similar limitations as claim 6;
therefore, the arguments above regarding claim 6 are also applicable to claim 22.
Referring to claim 23, this dependent claim recites similar limitations as claim 7;
therefore, the arguments above regarding claim 7 are also applicable to claim 23.
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 8, 10, 12-13, 16, 18, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berglund et al., US Pub. No. 2024/0403569 A1, in view of Ryan et al. US Pub. No. 2024/0330583 A1, in view of Fabian et al. US Pub. No. 2024/0303421.
As to claim 2, Berglund/Ryan do not disclose:
wherein the LLM prompt is generated and placed into the metadata template;
However, Fabian discloses:
the method of claim 1, wherein the LLM prompt is generated and placed into the metadata template
(Fabian teaches configuring prompts using prompt templates / prompt configurations with context data, i.e. “wherein the LLM prompt is generated and placed into the metadata template” see [0066-0067] [0066] To configure the prompt, prompt engine 305 identifies a prompt template according to the type of request in the input in an implementation. Prompt templates can include prompt configurations for suggesting a calculated column to be added to workbook data 320, for a general inquiry about workbook data 320, for analyzing data in workbook data 320 to project a result, such as for a hypothetical scenario, and so on. Using a selected prompt template, prompt engine 305 configures a prompt to include the input or the substance of the input and contextual information from application 301, e.g., from various ones of application component 303. Contextual information may include a chat history of user inputs and replies from LLM 330 and spreadsheet data, such as table information and at least a portion of the spreadsheet data. The portion of spreadsheet data included in the prompt may be column headers, row headers, a table name, and the first few rows of data or another portion or subset of the data that is relevant to the request. For example, if the user input asks in user interface 307 how a column of last names can be added to a data table in workbook data 320 based on a name column in the data table, prompt engine 305 may provide several entries in the name column in the prompt. [0067] Prompt engine 305 configures the prompt including parameters to direct LLM 330 to provide a focused response to the input.;
see also [0082] Prompt engine 305 selects a prompt template based on a type or classification of the inquiry and configures a prompt according to the template. In the prompt,
prompt engine 305 includes tasks, instructions, or rules applicable to generating a reply to the input,)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the time of the effective filing date to apply selecting a prompt template based on a type or classification of the inquiry and configures a prompt according to the template as taught by Fabian to the system of Berglund/Ryan, since it was known in the art that Large Language Model (LLM) systems provide a prompt engine which selects a prompt template based on a type or classification of the inquiry and configures a prompt according to the template where in the prompt, prompt engine includes tasks, instructions, or rules applicable to generating a reply to the input, such as tasking LLM to perform a self-evaluation of its reply and a rule to return the reply in a particular output format which is suitable for parsing where for inputs involving generating an explanation, the prompt may specify the explanation is to be enclosed in tags where the tasks, instructions, and rules included in the prompt may be predetermined according to the prompt template or according to the type or classification of the inquiry where the prompt engine also includes contextual information in the prompt. (Fabian [0082-0083]).
As to claim 4, Fabian as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a feedback process is performed to update the LLM prompt based at least in part upon actual values extracted for the metadata
(Fabian teaches updates based on user data and turn based conversation, i.e. update the LLM prompt based at least in part upon actual values extracted for the metadata see [0077-0079] [0077] In yet another implementation of operational scenario 400, user interface 307 receives a natural language input from the user or a selection of a suggested action displayed in user interface 307. Prompt engine 305 configures a prompt based on the input, including context data from application 301, and sends the prompt to LLM 330. Prompt engine 305 configures a response to the input based on the reply. The response is presented to the user in user interface 307, where the user selects a suggestion in response. [0078] In user interface 307, prompt engine 305 receives the selection of a suggestion in the response. Based on the selection, prompt engine 305 sends instructions to various ones of application component 303 to implement the suggestion. Application 301 implements the suggestion in workbook data 320 and sends an update to the display to user interface 307. [0079] Subsequent to displaying an update to the display in user interface 307, the user provides additional natural language inputs to prompt engine 305 via user interface 307. The inputs may relate to the suggestion that was implemented, to another suggestion, to an error generated in relation to the implemented suggestion, or to another aspect of workbook data 320. The inputs trigger replies from LLM 330 and responses to the inputs based on the replies. With each new input, prompt engine 305 gathers context data from application 301 which includes the chat history, i.e., previous inputs, replies, suggestions, and so on. The series of inputs and responses result in a turn-based conversation. In some turns, the user may not select a suggestion but instead submit another natural language input.).
As to claim 5, Fabian as modified discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the feedback process is performed based at least in part upon a human update or an update from an LLM
(Fabian teaches a turn/conversation based prompts feedback, i.e. human updates of LLM updates to the prompt see [0077-0079] [0077] In yet another implementation of operational scenario 400, user interface 307 receives a natural language input from the user or a selection of a suggested action displayed in user interface 307. Prompt engine 305 configures a prompt based on the input, including context data from application 301, and sends the prompt to LLM 330. Prompt engine 305 configures a response to the input based on the reply. The response is presented to the user in user interface 307, where the user selects a suggestion in response. [0078] In user interface 307, prompt engine 305 receives the selection of a suggestion in the response. Based on the selection, prompt engine 305 sends instructions to various ones of application component 303 to implement the suggestion. Application 301 implements the suggestion in workbook data 320 and sends an update to the display to user interface 307. [0079] Subsequent to displaying an update to the display in user interface 307, the user provides additional natural language inputs to prompt engine 305 via user interface 307. The inputs may relate to the suggestion that was implemented, to another suggestion, to an error generated in relation to the implemented suggestion, or to another aspect of workbook data 320. The inputs trigger replies from LLM 330 and responses to the inputs based on the replies. With each new input, prompt engine 305 gathers context data from application 301 which includes the chat history, i.e., previous inputs, replies, suggestions, and so on. The series of inputs and responses result in a turn-based conversation. In some turns, the user may not select a suggestion but instead submit another natural language input.).
As to claim 8, Fabian as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein an AI agent is employed to generate and execute the LLM prompt to extract the metadata
(Fabian teaches a copilot/assistant with a chat interface by which the application receives natural language input from the user, i.e. “wherein an AI agent is employed to generate and execute the prompt to extract the metadata” see Fig. 9B,9C,9D,9E,10A,10C showing a copilot;
See also [0116] Upon receiving a user selection to open the task pane in the user interface, the application displays task pane 1010 including a chat interface by which the application receives natural language input from the user. The application sends a prompt including spreadsheet contextual data to the LLM to generate a description of the spreadsheet and/or the data table. The application receives a reply from the LLM which the application processes for display, resulting in output 1011 in task pane 1010. The application also receives three suggested actions from the LLM which relate to modifying spreadsheet 1001 which the application processes and displays in output 1012. The user is also presented with textbox 1013 by which the user can submit natural language inputs, such as requests or queries, to the LLM via the application.;
See also [0065] FIG. 4 illustrates operational scenario 400 of an LLM integration with a spreadsheet environment and referring to elements of FIG. 3 in an implementation. In operational scenario 400, prompt engine 305 receives a natural language input from a user via user interface 307, such as in a task pane or chat interface in user interface 307. The input
may be a text entry keyed into a textbox of user interface 307 by the user or a spoken communication from the user captured by a microphone on the user computing device and which is translated to text by a speech-to-text engine. The input includes a request or query regarding workbook data 320. Prompt engine 305 configures).
Referring to claim 10, this dependent claim recites similar limitations as claim 2;
therefore, the arguments above regarding claim 2 are also applicable to claim 10.
Referring to claim 12, this dependent claim recites similar limitations as claim 4;
therefore, the arguments above regarding claim 4 are also applicable to claim 12.
Referring to claim 13, this dependent claim recites similar limitations as claim 5;
therefore, the arguments above regarding claim 5 are also applicable to claim 13.
Referring to claim 16, this dependent claim recites similar limitations as claim 8;
therefore, the arguments above regarding claim 8 are also applicable to claim 16.
Referring to claim 18, this dependent claim recites similar limitations as claim 2;
therefore, the arguments above regarding claim 2 are also applicable to claim 18.
Referring to claim 20, this dependent claim recites similar limitations as claim 4;
therefore, the arguments above regarding claim 4 are also applicable to claim 20.
Referring to claim 21, this dependent claim recites similar limitations as claim 5;
therefore, the arguments above regarding claim 5 are also applicable to claim 21.
Claim(s) 3, 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berglund et al., US Pub. No. 2024/0403569 A1, in view of Ryan et al. US Pub. No. 2024/0330583 A1, in view of Fabian et al. US Pub. No. 2024/0303421, in view of Fernandez et al. US Pub. No. 2025/0045516 A1.
As to claim 3, Berglund/Ryan/Fabian do not disclose:
wherein the LLM prompt is generated on a per-field basis in the metadata template
However, Fernandez discloses
the method of claim 2, wherein the LLM prompt is generated on a per-field basis in the metadata template
(Fernandez teaches prompt construction unit including at least a subsections/fields of the textual content, i.e. “the LLM prompt is generated on as per-field basis in the metadata template”
See [0030-0031] [0030] In some implementations, the prompt construction unit 124 constructs a natural language query that is provided to as a prompt to the language model 138. In such implementations, the prompt construction unit 124 includes at least an application identifier and at least a subsection of the textual content of the electronic content item. The textual
content may include but is not limited to a file title, section header or subtitles, and/or other textual content that has been added to the electronic content item. This textual content provides context to the language model 138 to determine which categories of template and which types of template subsections may be relevant to the user. The generation of the template suggestions is an iterative process that continues as the user creates or modifies the electronic content items. This approach enables the system to dynamically construct a custom template from among the available templates and template subsections. [0031] In a nonlimiting example, the prompt construction unit 124 constructs a natural language query having the following format: "what template could I use in application X for Y" where X represents a name or other application identifier associated with the application for which the template is to be created and Y represents at least a portion of the textual content from the electronic content item being
created.;
See also Fernandez teaches appending previous template recommendations to the natural language request [0048] The user can provide a natural language request in the prompt field 240 to refine the recommendation that is provide by the language model 138. The prompt construction unit 124 appends the previous template recommendation to the natural language request to provide the language model 138 with context regarding the previous recommendation
provided to the user.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the time of the effective filing date to apply construct a template from a plurality of template subsections as taught by Fernandez to the system of Berglund/Ryan/Fabian, since it was known in the art that Large Language Model (LLM) systems provide for utilizing the recommendations of a language model, such as the language model to dynamically construct a template from a plurality of template subsections from one or more existing templates to provide a customized template for the user to provide for rather than selecting a static, page-level template before any content is added to the electronic content item, the process enables the user to begin authoring the electronic content item and the application services platform uses the language model to predict which template subsections would be useful to the user based on the current textual content of the electronic content item where this approach is an iterative process that creates a custom template that fits the user's needs for a particular electronic content item from the subsection of templates that are selected from among a set of available templates where the user can also choose to save the custom template layout so that the user can select that template again in the future. (Fernandez [0077]).
Referring to claim 11, this dependent claim recites similar limitations as claim 3;
therefore, the arguments above regarding claim 3 are also applicable to claim 11.
Referring to claim 19, this dependent claim recites similar limitations as claim 3;
therefore, the arguments above regarding claim 3 are also applicable to claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tobin et al., US Pub. No.: US 2025/0077590 A1, teaches a data processing system for providing a service to extract information from a resource includes: a network interface for communicating over a computer network; a scraper tool to receive user instruction specifying a target resource and to extract content from the specified resource, wherein the user instruction further specifies a desired restructuring of the extracted content; and a prompt generator to structure the extracted content into a prompt for an Artificial Intelligence (AI) model, the prompt further directing the AI model to restructure the extracted content based on the user instruction.
The prompt generator is to call the AI model with the generated prompt. The service is to receive restructured content from the AI model and provide the restructured content to a workstation submitting the user instruction, the restructured content presenting the content of the target resource in a form according to the user instruction;
Padmanabhan et al., US Pub. No.: US 2025/0005299 A1, teaches a database system may include one or more relational databases storing information for a plurality of tenants in accordance with database object definitions. The database system may also include a communication interface providing the plurality of tenants with access to web applications
through which to access the information and configured to receive an indication of one or more of the database object definitions from a tenant. The database system may also include a storage device storing a prompt template specific to the tenant and that includes one or more natural language instructions for generating text and a reference to the one or more database object definitions. The database system may also include a processor configured to retrieve a database record associated with the tenant and corresponding to the one or more database object definitions and to determine a text generation prompt based on the database record and the prompt template;
Choe et al., US Pub. No.: US 2020/0394567 A1, teaches to automatically generate a project document, a server in a computing environment receives input documents associated with a project, and extracts a set of features from each input document. The server determines a frequency of the words in each input document and stores the frequencies in relation to the words in the sets of words. The server than applies a document type machine-learned model to a set of words for each input document to infer a document type. The document machine-learned model may be trained using a bag-of-words representation. The server then applies a
architecture pattern machine-learned model the set of input documents to determine a target architecture pattern. The server automatically generates a project document for the
project based on the document types and inferred architecture pattern.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN S ASPINWALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at 571-270-0474. 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.
/Evan Aspinwall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152