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 .
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “[a] method of automated diagnostic plan generation, the method comprising: receiving, by a processor of a network-connected device, a natural-language prompt from a user device and a user identifier corresponding to the user, the natural-language prompt including a natural-language description of a symptom of a technical problem; querying a first database with a first query comprising at least one of the user identifier, a representation of the natural-language prompt, and at least one keyword extracted from the natural-language prompt; receiving first information from the first database in response to the first query; generating an augmented prompt based on the natural-language prompt and the first information; generating, by a language model executed by the processor, a natural-language diagnostic plan based on the augmented prompt, the natural-language diagnostic plan comprising a plurality of diagnostic steps for diagnosing the technical problem; and transmitting the natural-language diagnostic plan to a technical support agent device in electronic communication with the user device.”
The limitation of “querying a first database with a first query comprising at least one of the user identifier, a representation of the natural-language prompt, and at least one keyword extracted from the natural-language prompt,” 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. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “generating an augmented prompt based on the natural-language prompt and the first information,” 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. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “generating, by a language model executed by the processor, a natural-language diagnostic plan based on the augmented prompt, the natural-language diagnostic plan comprising a plurality of diagnostic steps for diagnosing the technical problem,” 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. Mental Process, Mathematics, Extra-Solution Activity.
That is, other than reciting “server,” “processor,” and “device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “server,” “processor,” and “device” language, “querying… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper querying and generating data. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “server,” “processor,” and “device” to querying and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim recites “receiving, by a processor of a network-connected device, a natural-language prompt from a user device and a user identifier corresponding to the user, the natural-language prompt including a natural-language description of a symptom of a technical problem.” Extra-Solution Activity.
The claim recites “receiving first information from the first database in response to the first query.” Extra-Solution Activity.
The claim recites “transmitting the natural-language diagnostic plan to a technical support agent device in electronic communication with the user device.” Extra-Solution Activity.
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.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the querying and generating 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 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein receiving, by the processor, the natural-language prompt and the user identifier comprises: receiving, by a chat client operated by a user device in electronic communication with the network-connected device, a natural-language text input from the user including the natural-language prompt; generating, by the user device, a request comprising the natural-language prompt and the user identifier; providing, by the user device, the request to the network-connected device; and extracting, by the processor, the user identifier and the natural-language prompt from the request.”
The limitation of “extracting, by the processor, the user identifier and the natural-language prompt from the request,” 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. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “server,” “processor,” and “device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “server,” “processor,” and “device” language, “querying… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper querying and generating data. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “server,” “processor,” and “device” to querying and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim recites “wherein receiving, by the processor, the natural-language prompt and the user identifier comprises: receiving, by a chat client operated by a user device in electronic communication with the network-connected device, a natural-language text input from the user including the natural-language prompt.” Extra-Solution Activity.
The claim recites “generating, by the user device, a request comprising the natural-language prompt and the user identifier.” Extra-Solution Activity.
The claim recites “providing, by the user device, the request to the network-connected device.” Extra-Solution Activity.
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.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the querying and generating 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 is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites “[t]he method of claim 2, wherein querying the first database with the at least one of the user identifier, a representation of the natural-language prompt, and at least one keyword extracted from the natural-language prompt comprises querying the first database with the user identifier to retrieve product information for a technical product purchased by the user.”
The limitation of “querying the first database with the at least one of the user identifier, a representation of the natural-language prompt, and at least one keyword extracted from the natural-language prompt comprises querying the first database with the user identifier to retrieve product information for a technical product purchased by the user,” 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. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “server,” “processor,” and “device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “server,” “processor,” and “device” language, “querying… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper querying and generating data. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “server,” “processor,” and “device” to querying and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to 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.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the querying and generating 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 is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites “[t]he method of claim 3, and further comprising querying a second database with the product information to receive natural-language diagnostic information for diagnosing common technical problems for the technical product, and wherein generating the augmented prompt based on the natural-language prompt and the first information comprises generating the augmented prompt by combining the natural-language prompt and the natural-language diagnostic information.”
The limitation of “querying a second database with the product information to receive natural-language diagnostic information for diagnosing common technical problems for the technical product, and wherein generating the augmented prompt based on the natural-language prompt and the first information comprises generating the augmented prompt by combining the natural-language prompt and the natural-language diagnostic information,” 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. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “server,” “processor,” and “device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “server,” “processor,” and “device” language, “querying… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper querying and generating data. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “server,” “processor,” and “device” to querying and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to 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.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the querying and generating 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 is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites “[t]he method of claim 2, wherein: querying the first database the at least one of the user identifier, a representation of the natural-language prompt, and at least one keyword extracted from the natural-language prompt comprises querying the first database using the representation of the natural-language prompt; the representation of the natural-language prompt is a vector representation of the natural-language prompt; and the first database is a vector database storing a plurality of vectors representative of a plurality of natural-language text segments.”
The limitation of “querying the first database the at least one of the user identifier, a representation of the natural-language prompt, and at least one keyword extracted from the natural-language prompt comprises querying the first database using the representation of the natural-language prompt; the representation of the natural-language prompt is a vector representation of the natural-language prompt; and the first database is a vector database storing a plurality of vectors representative of a plurality of natural-language text segments,” 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. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “server,” “processor,” and “device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “server,” “processor,” and “device” language, “querying… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper querying and generating data. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “server,” “processor,” and “device” to querying and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to 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.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the querying and generating 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 is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites “[t]he method of claim 5, wherein the first information comprises at least one diagnostic template comprising at least a portion of the plurality of diagnostic steps.”
The limitation of “wherein the first information comprises at least one diagnostic template comprising at least a portion of the plurality of diagnostic steps,” 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. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “server,” “processor,” and “device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “server,” “processor,” and “device” language, “querying… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper querying and generating data. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “server,” “processor,” and “device” to querying and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to 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.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the querying and generating 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 is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites “[t]he method of claim 2, wherein querying the first database the at least one of the user identifier, a representation of the natural-language prompt, and at least one keyword extracted from the natural-language prompt comprises: extracting the at least one keyword from the natural-language prompt; and querying the first database with the at least one keyword extracted from the natural-language prompt.”
The limitation of “wherein querying the first database the at least one of the user identifier, a representation of the natural-language prompt, and at least one keyword extracted from the natural-language prompt comprises: extracting the at least one keyword from the natural-language prompt; and querying the first database with the at least one keyword extracted from the natural-language prompt,” 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. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “server,” “processor,” and “device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “server,” “processor,” and “device” language, “querying… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper querying and generating data. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “server,” “processor,” and “device” to querying and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to 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.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the querying and generating 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 is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites “[t]he method of claim 7, wherein extracting the at least one keyword from the natural-language prompt comprises extracting, using a natural-language processing algorithm executed by the processor, an intent and an entity from the natural-language prompt.”
The limitation of “wherein extracting the at least one keyword from the natural-language prompt comprises extracting, using a natural-language processing algorithm executed by the processor, an intent and an entity from the natural-language prompt” 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. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “server,” “processor,” and “device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “server,” “processor,” and “device” language, “querying… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper querying and generating data. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “server,” “processor,” and “device” to querying and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to 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.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the querying and generating 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 is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites “[t]he method of claim 8, wherein the first database organizes data into a plurality of data subsets and wherein querying the first database comprises: selecting a subset of the plurality of data subsets using at least one of the intent and the entity; and querying the subset of data using the other of the intent and the entity to retrieve the first information.”
The limitation of “wherein the first database organizes data into a plurality of data subsets and wherein querying the first database comprises: selecting a subset of the plurality of data subsets using at least one of the intent and the entity; and querying the subset of data using the other of the intent and the entity to retrieve the first information” 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. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “server,” “processor,” and “device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “server,” “processor,” and “device” language, “querying… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper querying and generating data. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “server,” “processor,” and “device” to querying and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to 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.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the querying and generating 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 is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites “[t]he method of claim 9, wherein the first information comprises at least one diagnostic template comprising at least a portion of the plurality of diagnostic steps.”
The limitation of “wherein the first information comprises at least one diagnostic template comprising at least a portion of the plurality of diagnostic steps” 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. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “server,” “processor,” and “device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “server,” “processor,” and “device” language, “querying… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper querying and generating data. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “server,” “processor,” and “device” to querying and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to 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.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the querying and generating 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 is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites “[t]he method of claim 7, wherein the at least one keyword comprises a first keyword and a second keyword, and wherein querying the first database with the at least one keyword comprises: querying the first database with the first keyword to retrieve the first information; and querying the first database with the second keyword to retrieve second information.”
The limitation of “wherein the at least one keyword comprises a first keyword and a second keyword, and wherein querying the first database with the at least one keyword comprises: querying the first database with the first keyword to retrieve the first information; and querying the first database with the second keyword to retrieve second information” 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. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “server,” “processor,” and “device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “server,” “processor,” and “device” language, “querying… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper querying and generating data. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “server,” “processor,” and “device” to querying and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to 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.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the querying and generating 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 is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites “[t]he method of claim 11, wherein generating the augmented prompt comprises generating the augmented prompt based on the natural-language prompt, the first information, and the second information.”
The limitation of “wherein generating the augmented prompt comprises generating the augmented prompt based on the natural-language prompt, the first information, and the second information” 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. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “server,” “processor,” and “device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “server,” “processor,” and “device” language, “querying… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper querying and generating data. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “server,” “processor,” and “device” to querying and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to 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.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the querying and generating 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 is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites “[t]he method of claim 2, wherein the first information comprises natural-language text and wherein generating the augmented prompt based on the natural-language prompt and the first information comprises combining the natural-language prompt with the natural-language text.”
The limitation of “wherein the first information comprises natural-language text and wherein generating the augmented prompt based on the natural-language prompt and the first information comprises combining the natural-language prompt with the natural-language text” 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. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “server,” “processor,” and “device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “server,” “processor,” and “device” language, “querying… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper querying and generating data. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “server,” “processor,” and “device” to querying and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to 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.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the querying and generating 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 is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites “[t]he method of claim 11, and further comprising generating user sentiment information based on the natural-language text prompt, and wherein generating the augmented prompt comprises generating the augmented prompt based on the natural-language prompt, the first information, and the user sentiment information.”
The limitation of “generating user sentiment information based on the natural-language text prompt, and wherein generating the augmented prompt comprises generating the augmented prompt based on the natural-language prompt, the first information, and the user sentiment information” 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. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “server,” “processor,” and “device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “server,” “processor,” and “device” language, “querying… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper querying and generating data. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “server,” “processor,” and “device” to querying and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to 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.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the querying and generating 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 is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites “[t]he method of claim 12, wherein generating user sentiment information comprises classifying user sentiment using a computer-implemented machine-learning sentiment classification algorithm executed by the processor.”
The limitation of “wherein generating user sentiment information comprises classifying user sentiment using a computer-implemented machine-learning sentiment classification algorithm executed by the processor” 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. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “server,” “processor,” and “device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “server,” “processor,” and “device” language, “querying… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper querying and generating data. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “server,” “processor,” and “device” to querying and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to 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.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the querying and generating 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 is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 recites “[t]he method of claim 13, and further comprising receiving, by the network-connected device, a natural-language response from the technical support agent device after communicating the natural-language diagnostic plan.”
The limitation of “method of claim 13” 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. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “server,” “processor,” and “device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “server,” “processor,” and “device” language, “querying… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper querying and generating data. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “server,” “processor,” and “device” to querying and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim recites “receiving, by the network-connected device, a natural-language response from the technical support agent device after communicating the natural-language diagnostic plan.” Extra-Solution Activity.
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.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the querying and generating 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 is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 recites “[t]he method of claim 13, and further comprising transmitting the natural-language response from the network-connected device to the user device.”
The limitation of “method of claim 13” 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. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “server,” “processor,” and “device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “server,” “processor,” and “device” language, “querying… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper querying and generating data. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “server,” “processor,” and “device” to querying and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim recites “transmitting the natural-language response from the network-connected device to the user device.” Extra-Solution Activity.
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.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the querying and generating 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 is not patent eligible.
Claims 18, 19, and 20 are rejected based on similar rationale given to claims 1, 6, and 14, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. US 2025/0006196 (hereinafter “Wang”) in view of Samuel et al. US 2022/0342738 (hereinafter “Samuel”).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches: A method of automated plan generation, the method comprising: receiving, by a processor of a network-connected device, a natural-language prompt from a user device and a user identifier corresponding to the user, the natural-language prompt including a natural-language description of a symptom of a technical problem; [0017: “he present disclosure provides techniques for generating a prompt including a user input and various information determined to be relevant for processing of the user input, which is to be provided to a language model for determining an action responsive to the user input. The various other information determined to be relevant for processing of the user input by the language model may include API definitions representing actions performable by APIs determined to be related to the user input (e.g., related to the action being requested), relevant examples of using the APIs with respect to similar user inputs (e.g., exemplars for one-shot/few-shot learning by the language model), relevant contexts such as device states corresponding to devices related to the user input (e.g., related to the action being requested) and/or other relevant contextual information (e.g., user profile information, device profile information, weather, time of day, user behaviors, historical interaction history, etc.) etc.), as well as define how the output of the model should be formatted. Including such information in the prompt enables the language model to identify the most appropriate action responsive to the user input (e.g., the most appropriate action performable by the API).”]
querying a first database with a first query comprising at least one of the user identifier, a representation of the natural-language prompt, and at least one keyword extracted from the natural-language prompt; [FIG. 1 and 0020: “FIG. 1 illustrates a system 100 including a large language model (LLM) orchestrator 130 and various other components for determining an action responsive to a user input. The system 100 may further include an action plan execution component 180 and an API provider component 190. With reference to FIG. 1, the LLM orchestrator 130 may include a preliminary action plan generation component 140, a language model prompt generation component 150, a language model 160, and an action plan generation component 170.”]
receiving first information from the first database in response to the first query; [0017: “For example, the language model can use the exemplars and the API definitions to identify the most appropriate action (e.g., API) to be performed in response to the user input. The language model can further use the contextual information (e.g., device states and other contextual information) to generate an executable API call, and the system may execute the action corresponding to the API call. Including information in the prompt that is already determined to be relevant for processing of the user input by the language model increases the efficiency and accuracy of the language model because it enables the language model to perform one-shot/few-shot learning using only information determined to be relevant for processing of the current problem by the language model. This further prevents the language model from having to consider irrelevant information when determining the action responsive to the user.”]
generating an augmented prompt based on the natural-language prompt and the first information; [0017: “Such preprocessing further shortens the length of the prompt provided to the language model by only including the top-n portions of relevant information, which may prevent the degradation in accuracy of the language model that may accompany lengthy prompts.”]
generating, by a language model executed by the processor, a natural-language plan based on the augmented prompt, the natural-language plan comprising; and [FIG. 1 and 0044: “The model output data 165 is sent (at step 7) to the action plan generation component 170. The action plan generation component 170 may parse the model output data 165 to determine action plan data (e.g., the action plan data 410 illustrated in FIG. 4) representing the action generated by the language model 160.”]
transmitting the natural-language plan to a technical support agent device in electronic communication with the user device. [0048-0049: “The action plan generation component 170 may send (at step 17) action plan data 410 representing the determined action to the action plan execution component 180… The action plan execution component 180 processes the action plan data 410 to cause one or more components of the API provider component 190 to perform the action(s) represented by the action plan data 410. For example, as shown in FIG. 4, the action plan execution component 180 may send (at step 18) action data 415 representing an API call corresponding to the action to the API provider component 190.”]
Wang does not expressively teach diagnostic plan or a plurality of steps for diagnosing the technical problem, but does teach “action plan generation component 170 may parse the model output data 165 to determine action plan data.” Wang par. 0044.
Samuel teaches: diagnostic plan [0008: “…generate optimized diagnostic plans that prioritize any appropriate diagnostic testing parameter or objective…”]
a plurality of steps for diagnosing the technical problem [0008: “…generate optimized diagnostic plans that prioritize any appropriate diagnostic testing parameter or objective…” Also see FIG. 7 for steps.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined Wang’s natural language generation method with Samuel’s diagnostic plan, thereby devising a system that supports natural language diagnostic planning. One would have been motivated to have combined the prior arts because Wang’s action plan is functionally equivalent to a diagnostic plan but is used in a broader application. Samuel’s diagnostic plan would have been a suitable arrangement to use with Wang’s system.
Claim 18 is rejected based on the same citations and rationale given to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)431-0699. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 A.M.-4:00 P.M..
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, BRYCE P BONZO can be reached at (571)-272-3655. 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.
/JONATHAN D GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113