DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Introductory Remarks
This action is in response to communications filed on 1 November 2024. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are presently pending in the application, of which, claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 is/are presented in independent form.
No priority is claimed.
An IDS was received on 5 February 2025. All references have been considered.
Examiner’s Note
The rejections below group claims that may not be identical, but whose language and scope are so substantively similar as to lend themselves to grouping, in the interests of clarity and conciseness. Any citation to the instant specification herein is made to the PGPub version (if applicable). The examiner notes that no statement has been entered regarding the inventorship of individual claims as required under 37 CFR 1.56, and therefore assumes that all claims have the same inventorship or are directed to inventions that were commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the invention.
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.
The claim(s) recite(s) mental process steps of data processing, specifically to generate predictive text, which is claimed here as “code prediction”. In this analysis, only those claim limitations stipulated as additional elements are considered to be limitations distinct from the abstract idea itself.
With respect to the independent claims, claim 1 is representative. Claim 1 recites, “generating [] a text segment vector using a text segment from a file”, “determining [] a subset of searching codes from a set of codes based on determining a distance between the text segment vector and a first code vector associated with a first searching code of the subset of searching codes”, “generating [] a generative model prompt based on the subset of searching codes”, and “generating [] a code prediction for the text segment based on the generative model prompt”. This is not dissimilar from the abstract idea at issue in USC IP Partnership, L.P. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (Fed Cir, 2022-1397, 8/30/2023), which was also found ineligible.
The additional elements in the claim are: “computer-implemented”, “one or more processors”, “a machine learning encoder”, and “a generative model”. When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). With respect to the “machine learning encoder” and “generative model” additional elements, there are no details about particular machine learning models or how the machine learning models operate to perform the claimed task other than that it is being used to do so. The machine learning models are used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limitation on how the models operate to perform the claimed limitations of generating a text segment vector and generating a code prediction for the text segment. The independent claims omit any details as to how the models solve a technical problem, and instead the claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome. Also, the claims invoke generic machine learning models merely as a tool for making the recited mathematical calculation rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements amount to nothing more than implementation of the abstract idea in a computer environment and/or is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. See MPEP 2016.04(d)(I) and 2106.05(f).
The claim does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s) and insignificant extra-solution activity. These cannot provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are patent-ineligible.
The other independent claims add further generic computing components in the form of “at least one memory” (claim 10) and “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media” (claim 19), which do nothing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims add nothing more than additional abstract idea limitations and/or additional neural networks (see e.g. claim 8), which again do nothing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J TORGRIMSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5550. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksander Kerzhner can be reached at 571.270.1760. 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.
/TYLER J TORGRIMSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights