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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One: The independent claim 1 recites “in response to receiving a user query for a large language model (LLM): encoding the user query into a query vector; and querying a semantic cache of semantic vectors to determine one or more semantic vectors stored therein that are similar to the query vector, wherein: a respective semantic vector is a vector representation of a previous user query and is associated with a verified response; and the querying includes determining, for each semantic vector of at least a subset of semantic vectors in the semantic cache, a respective semantic similarity score between the query vector and the respective semantic vector; in accordance with a determination that the respective semantic similarity score between the query vector and the respective semantic vector satisfies a first threshold score: retrieving, from the semantic cache, a cached response corresponding to the respective semantic vector; and returning the cached response as a response to the user query without querying the LLM; and in accordance with a determination that the respective semantic similarity score between the query vector and the respective semantic vector does not satisfy the first threshold score: retrieving, from the semantic cache, the cached response corresponding to the respective semantic vector; generating a prompt that includes the cached response as one of a plurality of context examples; inputting the prompt into the LLM and obtaining, from the LLM, a model output; and returning the model output as the response to the user query”.
Claims 1, 12 and 19 recite a way to make large language model prompts by reusing past, user-verified answers. The limitation of claims is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, could be performed in the human mind and requires no more than a performing of generic computer functions (e.g. collecting data, calculating). More specifically, a human may make judgments based on inputs such as what he/she sees, hears and/or feel and perform actions.
[Abstract idea indicators]
receives a user question, turns it into a vector — a task that human routinely performs mentally or with conventional tools.
compares the vector against a storage/database of prior questions and answers – decision-making that are mental processes
returns the stored answer directly without asking the LLM again, if the new question is very similar to a stored question OR uses the cached answer as a context example inside a new prompt and sends that prompt to the LLM, if the match is less exact, i.e., a cognitive process.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as performing a generic computer function and being used as an applying) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, there 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.
Step 2B — Claims Do Not Recite an Inventive Concept That Transforms the Mental Process into Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
The claims add generic, well-understood computer components (memory, processor, and presenting to a workspace device) and broadly recite use of “Large Language Model” without describing any specific, unconventional structure, algorithmic detail, data structure, or system architecture that provides a concrete technical improvement in computer functionality.
Applying Alice step two and relevant Federal Circuit precedent:
The recitation of conventional computer components (memory and processor) performing routine functions does not supply an inventive concept.
The mere invocation of “Large Lange Model” without particularity does not demonstrate an unconventional machine or technique or a specific improvement in computer technology.
The claims recite high-level, result-oriented steps (e.g., “extract,” “determine,” “refer”) that describe mental processes rather than specific technical means for performing those processes.
Because the claims lack limitations that tie the mental-process steps to a particular way of achieving a technological improvement (for example, a novel model architecture, specialized data representation, unique training regimen that yields demonstrable technical performance gains, a specialized streaming/decoding pipeline that reduces latency by a quantifiable amount, or hardware/software co-design), the additional elements do not transform the mental processes into significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1, 12 and 19 fail to recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter.
With respect to dependent claim 2, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 3, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 4, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 5, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 6, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 7, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 8, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 9, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 10, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 11, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 13, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 14, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 15, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 16, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 17, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 18, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 20, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion — Rejection
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (mental processes) and failing to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al., (US 2026/0147801 A1, priority date- Nov. 22, 2024).
Regarding claim 19, Kim discloses a method of generating semantic caches, performed at a computer system that includes one or more processors and memory, the method comprising:
receiving a user query for a large language model (LLM) (Figs. 1 and 8, S830, [0151] receiving a user query);
in accordance with receiving the user query:
generating a prompt according to the user query (Figs. 1 and 8, S845, [0154] generating a prompt);
inputting the prompt into the LLM (Figs. 1 and 8, S850, [0154] inputting the prompt into the LLM); and
obtaining from the LLM a response to the user query (Figs. 1, and 8, [0070]-[0073] obtaining a response from the LLM);
receiving a user interaction with the response(Figs. 1, and 8, [0157] provide a user device with information about a table used as a data source, and a response); and
in accordance with a determination that the user interaction is an interaction having a first type: applying an embeddings model to encode the user query as a first semantic vector (Fig. 2, a method for recognizing unstructured data and generating a data representation in an LLM-based data representation generation system; [0078][0079] applying an embedding model to “convert enterprise data into a fixed-dimensional vector and may represent the semantic similarity of data in a vector space”); and
storing the first semantic vector and the response in a semantic cache ([0197] “when the system extracts the correct answer in advance and uses them only for sentence generation, the computational resources of the LLM may be saved”).
Regarding claim 20, Kim discloses the method of claim 19, and Kim further discloses:
forming a corpus of training data to be used to generate a target model, the corpus of training data including a plurality of semantic vectors, including the first semantic vector, each of the plurality of semantic vectors having a corresponding verified response (Figs. 1 and 2, [0079]-[0087] the data representation generation system may map a vector value, which is extracted by each embedding model, to a common embedding space through Linear Projection to identically match the dimensions of each modality embedding, and may learn the interaction between two modalities by using Cross-Attention).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEONG-AH A. SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5933. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-3PM.
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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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.
Seong-ah A. Shin
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/SEONG-AH A SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights