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 Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 9 are objected to because of the following informality:
The claims use the abbreviation API without first defining API before use of the abbreviation in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8 and 9 are objected to because of the following informality:
The claims use the abbreviation AI without first defining AI before use of the abbreviation in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 4 and 8-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 6 of co-pending U.S. Application 18/945,315. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variants of each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The chart below shows the correspondence between the claims in the current application and the claims in the patent.
Instant Application 18/945,372
Co-pending Application 18/945,315
1. An information processing device comprising:
a reception unit that receives, from another information processing device having received user setting information that is information set by a user,
a search unit that searches for a prompt to be input to generative AI that is used in the other information processing device, based on the user setting information received by the reception unit;
and a providing unit that provides, as a provided prompt, the prompt searched by the search unit to the other information processing device
6. The information processing device according to claim 5, comprising:
a reception unit that receives a search request from the user;
and a search unit that searches for, as the prompts, two or more prompts corresponding to the search request received by the reception unit,
wherein the providing unit provides, to the user, each of the prompts searched by the search unit in a selectable manner.
4. The information processing device according to claim 1,
comprising a billing unit that charges an administrator of the other information processing device for a providing fee of the provided prompt, when the provided prompt is provided by the providing unit.
2. The information processing device according to claim 1,
comprising a billing unit that performs billing processing for the user to whom the provided information is provided by the providing unit.
6. wherein the providing unit provides, to the user, each of the prompts searched by the search unit in a selectable manner.
Claims 8 and 9 correspond to claim 1, and are rejected accordingly.
Each patent claim in the above chart contains all the limitations recited in the corresponding claim of the current application. In other words, each patent claim is either 1) narrower than or 2) substantially equivalent to the corresponding claim of the instant application. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the data processing art at the time the invention was made to omit elements when the remaining elements perform as before. A person of ordinary skill could have arrived at the present claims by omitting the details of the patent claims. See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decided January 16, 1963 (“Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same functions as before.”).
Regarding claim 1, ‘18/945,315 ‘ discloses the features of claim 1 of the instant application as shown above,
However ‘18/945,315’ does not recite “
“the user setting information via an API defined in advance; “
However Cheng discloses:
the user setting information via an API defined in advance; via the API; (Cheng ,Fig. 12, item 1102 “Receive, via a communication interface, a natural language processing (NLP) task request comprising a user input from a user application” ,item 1206 “Transform, by a data gateway, the one or more prompts into a normalized API request”, item 1208 “Transmit, by the data gateway, the normalized API request to an external vendor server hosting one or more neural network based NLP models”, item 1210 “Translate the normalized API request to a vendor-specific request for generating a vendor-specific response by the one or more neural network based NLP models”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of ‘18/945,315 ‘ with the teaching of Cheng to utilize an interface with normalized APis as an alternative to custom integrations with internal and externally hosted foundational models and to directly interface with the generative services and/or LLM Gateway, (Cheng [0025]) and also to allow generative AI features to be compatible among different AI models with the generative AI platform 110, (Cheng, [0030]). In this way, the customized generative AI stack thus supports a full spectrum of domain-adaptive prompts to enable a full spectrum of personalized and adaptive AI chat applications, (Cheng, abstract).
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis below of the claims’ subject matter eligibility follows the guidance set forth in MPEP 2106 which has incorporated the 2019 PEG. Independent claim 1 recites an information processing device, Independent claim 8 recites an information processing method and Independent claim 9 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored an information processing program. Therefore, Step 1 is satisfied for claims 1-9.
The independent claim 1 recites:
An information processing device comprising:
a reception unit that receives, from another information processing device having received user setting information that is information set by a user, the user setting information via an API defined in advance;
a search unit that searches for a prompt to be input to generative AI that is used in the other information processing device, based on the user setting information received by the reception unit; and
a providing unit that provides, as a provided prompt, the prompt searched by the search unit to the other information processing device via the API.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to an information processing device, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The above-noted limitations of receives, searches and provides as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, receives the user setting information, searches for a prompt to be input based on the user setting information received by the reception unit, provides, as a provided prompt, the prompt searched by the search unit to the other information processing device in the context of this claim encompasses mental processes, a concept performed in the human mind (including observations and preform an evaluation, judgment, and opinion) and can be performed with pen and paper.
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: In Step 2A Prong 2, we are directed to Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because besides the abstract idea. The claim 1 recites additional elements of an information processing device, an API and generative AI.
The information processing device, API and generative AI are so generic that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer.
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. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements of an information processing device, an API and generative AI.
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 elements of “an information processing device, an API and generative AI“ are simply performing a generic computer function 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.
Accordingly, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to the information processing device, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the user setting information is a user prompt that is a prompt input or selected by the user, and the search unit searches for a prompt that is assumed to be capable of acquiring appropriate information from the generative AI more than the user prompt received by the reception unit, the prompt being provided as the provided prompt.” The above-noted limitation of claim 2, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites one additional element – generative AI
The generative AI is recited at a high-level of generality so that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. 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. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In particular, the claim only recites one additional element- generative AI
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 “generative AI ” is simply applying the abstract idea.
Accordingly, this additional element, taken individually and in combination, does not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to the information processing device, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the search unit searches for the prompt to be provided as the provided prompt, based on the user prompt and attributes of the user received by the reception unit.” The above-noted limitation of claim 3, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
There is no additional element integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, there is no additional element integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to the information processing device, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 4 recites “comprising a billing unit that charges an administrator of the other information processing device for a providing fee of the provided prompt, when the provided prompt is provided by the providing unit.” The above-noted limitation of claim 4, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes”/ “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
There is no additional element integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, there is no additional element integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to the information processing device, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 4, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 5 recites “comprising a determination unit that determines a higher fee as the providing fee for a provided prompt that is assumed to have a higher possibility of acquiring appropriate information from the generative AI.” The above-noted limitation of claim 5, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes”/ “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites one additional element – generative AI
The generative AI is recited at a high-level of generality so that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. 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. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In particular, the claim only recites one additional element- generative AI
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 “generative AI ” is simply applying the abstract idea.
Accordingly, this additional element, taken individually and in combination, does not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to the information processing device, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 6 recites “wherein, when a prompt based on attributes of the user is the provided prompt, the determination unit determines a higher amount for the providing fee compared to a case where a prompt not based on the attributes of the user is the provided prompt.” The above-noted limitation of claim 6, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes”/ “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
There is no additional element integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, there is no additional element integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to the information processing device, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the user setting information is information indicating a request of the user, and the search unit searches for a prompt that is a prompt corresponding to the information indicating the request received by the reception unit, the prompt being provided as the provided prompt.” The above-noted limitation of claim 7, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
There is no additional element integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, there is no additional element integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
The independent claim 8 recites:
An information processing method executed by a computer, the information processing method comprising:
receiving, from another information processing device having received user setting information that is information set by a user, the user setting information via an API defined in advance;
searching for a prompt to be input to generative AI that is used in the other information processing device, based on the user setting information received at the receiving; and
providing, as a provided prompt, the prompt searched at the searching to the other information processing device via the API.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The above-noted limitations of receiving, searching and providing as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, receiving the user setting information, searching for a prompt to be input based on the user setting information received by the reception unit, providing, as a provided prompt, the prompt searched by the search unit to the other information processing device in the context of this claim encompasses mental processes, a concept performed in the human mind (including observations and preform an evaluation, judgment, and opinion) and can be performed with pen and paper.
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: In Step 2A Prong 2, we are directed to Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because besides the abstract idea. The claim 8 recites additional elements of an information processing device, an API and generative AI.
The information processing device, API and generative AI are so generic that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer.
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. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In particular, the claim 8 recites additional elements of an information processing device, an API and generative AI.
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 elements of “an information processing device, an API and generative AI“ are simply performing a generic computer function 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.
Accordingly, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
The independent claim 9 recites:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored an information processing program that causes a computer to execute:
receiving, from another information processing device having received user setting information that is information set by a user, the user setting information via an API defined in advance;
searching for a prompt to be input to generative AI that is used in the other information processing device, based on the user setting information received at the receiving; and
providing, as a provided prompt, the prompt searched at the searching to the other information processing device via the API.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The above-noted limitations of receiving, searching and providing as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, receiving the user setting information, searching for a prompt to be input based on the user setting information received by the reception unit, providing, as a provided prompt, the prompt searched by the search unit to the other information processing device in the context of this claim encompasses mental processes, a concept performed in the human mind (including observations and preform an evaluation, judgment, and opinion) and can be performed with pen and paper.
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: In Step 2A Prong 2, we are directed to Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because besides the abstract idea. The claim 9 recites additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, an information processing device, a computer, an API and generative AI.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium, information processing device, computer, API and generative AI are so generic that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer.
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. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In particular, the claim 9 recites additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, an information processing device, a computer, an API and generative AI.
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 elements of “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, an information processing device, a computer, an API and generative AI “ are simply performing a generic computer function 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.
Accordingly, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 1-3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAUR (US20250165231A1) in view of Cheng (US 2024/0303473 Al)
Regarding claim 1, GAUR discloses: An information processing device comprising: a reception unit that receives, from another information processing device having received user setting information that is information set by a user, the user setting information via an API; (GAUR [0083] Processor(s) 710 can be configured to conduct program code generation for data processing programs, which can include, for receipt of a user prompt (Sl0l); Fig. 3, user_prompt; [0032] In step Sl0l, the user inputs a prompt. An example prompt can be "The OEE of the product A for the last three days". [0082] In some example implementations, when information or an execution instruction is received by API unit 765, it may be communicated to one or more other units (e.g., logic unit 760, input unit 770, output unit 775).
a search unit that searches for a prompt to be input to generative AI that is used in the other information processing device, based on the user setting information received by the reception unit; (GAUR, [0032] In step S101, the user inputs a prompt. [0033] In step S102, the related prompt search unit (11) searches the prompt database (21) for prompts that are related to the prompt entered in step S101. The search may use vector search technology or other methods; [0036] In step S501, the ETL program code generation unit (15) generates the ETL program code using the combined prompt generated in step S103. The ETL program code can be generated using the Large Language Model (LLM) or any other method.)
and a providing unit that provides, as a provided prompt, the prompt searched by the search unit to the other information processing device via the API. (GAUR, [0034] In step S103, the prompt combining unit (12) generates a combined prompt that combines the prompt entered by the user in step S101 with the related prompts found in step S102. [0035] In step S104, the prompt improvement unit (13) searches the program template database (22) for program templates that are related to the combined prompt generated in step S103. [0082] when information or an execution instruction is received by API unit 765, it may be communicated to one or more other units (e.g., logic unit 760, input unit 770, output unit 775). In some instances, logic unit 760 may be configured to control the information flow among the units and direct the services provided by API unit 765, the input unit 770, the output unit 775, in some example implementations described above. For example, the flow of one or more processes or implementations may be controlled by logic unit 760 alone or in conjunction with API unit 765)
However GAUR is silent to disclose:
an API defined in advance
However Cheng discloses:
an API defined in advance (Cheng ,Fig. 12, item 1206 “Transform, by a data gateway, the one or more prompts into a normalized API request”, item 1208 “Transmit, by the data gateway, the normalized API request to an external vendor server hosting one or more neural network based NLP models”, item 1210 “Translate the normalized API request to a vendor-specific request for generating a vendor-specific response by the one or more neural network based NLP models”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of GAUR with the teaching of Cheng to utilize an interface with normalized APIs as an alternative to custom integrations with internal and externally hosted foundational models and to directly interface with the generative services and/or LLM Gateway, (Cheng [0025]) and also to allow generative AI features to be compatible among different AI models with the generative AI platform 110, (Cheng, [0030]). In this way, the customized generative AI stack thus supports a full spectrum of domain-adaptive prompts to enable a full spectrum of personalized and adaptive AI chat applications, (Cheng, abstract).
Claims 8 and 9 correspond to claim 1, and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 2, GAUR in view of Cheng discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Claim 2 further recites: wherein the user setting information is a user prompt that is a prompt input or selected by the user, and the search unit searches for a prompt that is assumed to be capable of acquiring appropriate information from the generative AI more than the user prompt received by the reception unit, the prompt being provided as the provided prompt. (GAUR, [0032] In step S101, the user inputs a prompt. [0033] In step S102, the related prompt search unit (11) searches the prompt database (21) for prompts that are related to the prompt entered in step S101. The search may use vector search technology or other methods; [0036] In step S501, the ETL program code generation unit (15) generates the ETL program code using the combined prompt generated in step S103. The ETL program code can be generated using the Large Language Model (LLM) or any other method; [0066] in step S104, the prompt improvement unit (13) searches for the existence of a program template in the program template database (22) that is related to the combined prompt generated in step S103; [0009] If the result is not as expected, the prompt entered by the user, the ETL program code generated, and the result of the judgment that the result was not as expected are recorded in the prompt database. Then, the ETL program code is generated again using LLM. Since the prompt database contains examples of ETL program code that are not as expected, the LLM generates different ETL program code. Repeating this process produces the desired ETL program code.)
Regarding claim 3, GAUR in view of Cheng discloses all of the features with respect to claim 2 as outlined above. Claim 3 further recites: wherein the search unit searches for the prompt to be provided as the provided prompt, based on the user prompt and attributes of the user received by the reception unit.
(GAUR, [0029] The prompt database (21) contains IDs, prompts entered by users, record IDs of related prompts, …, user evaluations of generated ETL program code, user names, and so on in accordance with the desired implementation. [0032] In step S101, the user inputs a prompt. [0033] In step S102, the related prompt search unit (11) searches the prompt database (21) for prompts that are related to the prompt entered in step S101. The search may use vector search technology or other methods; [0040] In step S701, the program code evaluation unit (18) inputs information about the prompt to the prompt database (21). In this example, the information shown in 21-1 of FIG. 3 is entered. Specifically, the prompt entered by the user in step S101, the related prompt extracted in step S102, the combined prompt generated in step S103, the ETL program code generated in step S501, the evaluation result received in step S504, and the user name are entered)
Regarding claim 7, GAUR in view of Cheng discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Claim 7 further recites: wherein the user setting information is information indicating a request of the user, and the search unit searches for a prompt that is a prompt corresponding to the information indicating the request received by the reception unit, the prompt being provided as the provided prompt. (GAUR, [0032] In step S101, the user inputs a prompt. An example prompt can be “The OEE of the product A for the last three days”. This input can be done by keyboard, touch screen, voice, or otherwise in accordance with the desired implementation. The prompt input is stored in the related prompt search unit (11) and the prompt combining unit (12). [0033] In step S102, the related prompt search unit (11) searches the prompt database (21) for prompts that are related to the prompt entered in step S101. The search may use vector search technology or other methods.[0034]In step S103, the prompt combining unit (12) generates a combined prompt that combines the prompt entered by the user in step S101 with the related prompts found in step S102. In this example, since no related prompt was found in step S102, the prompt entered by the user in step S101 is the combined prompt.)
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAUR (US20250165231A1) in view of Cheng (US 2024/0303473 Al) in further view of Lyons (US20240362968A1)
Regarding claim 4, GAUR in view of Cheng discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. GAUR in view of Cheng does not clearly disclose:
comprising a billing unit that charges an administrator of the other information processing device for a providing fee of the provided prompt, when the provided prompt is provided by the providing unit.
However Lyons discloses:
comprising a billing unit that charges an administrator of the other information processing device for a providing fee of the provided prompt, when the provided prompt is provided by the providing unit. (Lyons [0053] the prompt assistor can be provided based on a subscription model or preferred player model, such as where specific levels of prompt construction (e.g., access to specific words, levels of words, categories, subcategories, etc.) are available based on the level of the subscription.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of GAUR in view of Cheng with the teaching of Lyons to update the machine learning model to engineer improved prompts, to dynamically generate improved gaming content, to provide improved customizations, (Lyons, [0085]).
Regarding claim 5, GAUR in view of Cheng in view of Lyons discloses all of the features with respect to claim 4 as outlined above. GAUR in view of Cheng does not clearly disclose: comprising a determination unit that determines a higher fee as the providing fee for a provided prompt that is assumed to have a higher possibility of acquiring appropriate information from the generative AI.
However Lyons discloses:
comprising a determination unit that determines a higher fee as the providing fee for a provided prompt that is assumed to have a higher possibility of acquiring appropriate information from the generative AI. (Lyons, [0053] the prompt assistor can be provided based on a subscription model or preferred player model, such as where specific levels of prompt construction (e.g., access to specific words, levels of words, categories, subcategories, etc.) are available based on the level of the subscription… the processor can provide differing levels of access to, or use of, a machine learning model, such as by awarding a player a priority access to a queue for use of the machine learning model, awarding a faster output time of the machine learning model or higher- quality output of the machine learning model (e.g., the processor provides a quicker output of the machine learning model for a higher-priority access, such as an output that completes in 5 second, whereas the processor provides a slower output of the machine learning model for a lower-priority access, such as an output that completes in 15 seconds)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of GAUR in view of Cheng with the teaching of Lyons to update the machine learning model to engineer improved prompts, to dynamically generate improved gaming content, to provide improved customizations, (Lyons, [0085]).
Regarding claim 6, GAUR in view of Cheng in view of Lyons discloses all of the features with respect to claim 5 as outlined above. GAUR in view of Cheng does not clearly disclose: when a prompt based on attributes of the user is the provided prompt, the determination unit determines a higher amount for the providing fee compared to a case where a prompt not based on the attributes of the user is the provided prompt.
However Lyons discloses:
when a prompt based on attributes of the user is the provided prompt, the determination unit determines a higher amount for the providing fee compared to a case where a prompt not based on the attributes of the user is the provided prompt. (Lyons, [0053] the prompt assistor can be provided based on a subscription model or preferred player model, such as where specific levels of prompt construction (e.g., access to specific words, levels of words, categories, subcategories, etc.) are available based on the level of the subscription; [0070]-[0071], e.g. [0071] the processor predicts, via the machine learning model based on detected player characteristics, an emotion (e.g., a probable emotional state) of a player (e.g., how the player is feeling, whether sad, happy, excited, bored, etc.). The processor can then use the predicted emotion to generate or select a prompt token that relates to, or is based on, the emotion. For instance, if the processor detects that a player is feeling a negative mood (e.g., sad, boredom, etc.) the processor may construct a prompt token that describes a word or phrase that will dynamically generate gaming content intended to induce a positive mood.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of GAUR in view of Cheng with the teaching of Lyons to update the machine learning model to engineer improved prompts, to dynamically generate improved gaming content, to provide improved customizations, (Lyons, [0085]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Faezeh Forouharnejad whose telephone number is (571)270-7416. The examiner can normally be reached on generally Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shah Sanjiv can be reached on (571)272-4098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)
/F.F. /
Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166