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 1-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving a first natural language query identifying a target procedure in a particular context;
determining, based on the first natural language query, a reference schema for the target procedure from among a plurality of stored schemas, wherein each schema of the plurality of stored schemas defines a respective deterministic action sequence for performing a respective procedure in a respective context;
constructing a second natural language query based on the first natural language query and the reference schema;
sending, to a multimodal model, the second natural language query;
receiving, from the multimodal model, an initial output schema based on the second natural language query, the initial output schema defining an initial action sequence for performing the target procedure;
verifying a construction of the initial action sequence; and
generating, based on the verifying, a final output schema that defines a deterministic action sequence for performing the target procedure,
wherein the final output schema provides a deterministic result when executed.
assigning, by an orchestrator, a plurality of agents to execute the final output schema;
instructing a first agent to perform a first action within the deterministic action sequence to obtain an agent decision;
determining, based on the agent decision, one or more additional actions within the deterministic action sequence to perform;
instructing one or more additional agents to perform the one or more additional actions to obtain a final schema result;
and completing the target procedure based on the final schema result.
Examiner finds that the emphasized portions of claim 1 above recite an abstract idea—namely, mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)and (III):
Accordingly, the ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions
When read as a whole, the recited limitations are directed to using mental steps to observe, evaluate, and make judgements about electronic data
Taking each element individually, Examiner provides the following analysis:
The element “determining, based on the first natural language query, a reference schema for the target procedure from among a plurality of stored schemas, wherein each schema of the plurality of stored schemas defines a respective deterministic action sequence for performing a respective procedure in a respective context” merely requires observation and evaluation of the first NL query and an evaluation/judgment with respect to which reference schema to choose.
The element “constructing a second natural language query based on the first natural language query and the reference schema” merely requires observation and evaluation of the first NL query and reference schema and an evaluation and/or judgment as to how to construct the second NL query.
The element “verifying a construction of the initial action sequence” merely requires human judgment as to the validity of the constructions of the initial action sequence.
The element “generating, based on the verifying, a final output schema that defines a deterministic action sequence for performing the target procedure” merely requires an evaluation and/or judgment as to how to generate the final output schema. Examiner finds this element can be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
The element “assigning, . . . a plurality of agents to execute the final output schema” merely requires judgment on the part of a human as to which agent is assigned to execute the final output schema. Examiner finds this element can be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
The element “instructing a first agent to perform a first action within the deterministic action sequence to obtain an agent decision” merely requires human judgment as to the instructions that are needed for a first agent to perform a first action. Examiner finds this element can be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
The element “determining, based on the agent decision, one or more additional actions within the deterministic action sequence to perform” merely requires observation and evaluation of the decision and an evaluation/judgment as to what additional action to take. Examiner finds this element can be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
The element “instructing one or more additional agents to perform the one or more additional actions to obtain a final schema result; and” merely requires human evaluation/judgment as to what instructions are required to “perform the one or more additional actions to obtain a final schema result. . .”Examiner finds this element can be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
Turning to the additional elements, the element “1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving a first natural language query identifying a target procedure in a particular context” recites insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, this element does not integrate the exception. This element also recites receiving or transmitting data over a network and thus recites a well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) computer function. As such, it fails to recite an inventive concept. See 2106.05(d)(II).
The element “sending, to a multimodal model, the second natural language query” recites “mere data gathering” and thus recites insignificant extra solution activity and does not integrate the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).This element also recites receiving or transmitting data over a network and thus recites a WURC computer function. See 2106.05(d)(II). As such, it does not recite an inventive concept. See id.
The element “receiving, from the multimodal model, an initial output schema based on the second natural language query, the initial output schema defining an initial action sequence for performing the target procedure” recites “mere data gathering” and thus recites insignificant extra solution activity and does not integrate the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). This element also recites receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory and thus recites a WURC computer function. See 2106.05(d)(II). As such, it does not recite an inventive concept. See id.
Examiner finds “wherein the final output schema provides a deterministic result when executed” has no patentable weight because it recites an intended result1.
Examiner finds “by an orchestrator” generally links the abstract idea to the field of use of agents/LLMs/generative AI and thus does not integrate the exception or recite an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The element “completing the target procedure based on the final schema result” recites mere instructions to apply the exception. As such, it fails to integrate the exception and fails to recite an inventive concept.
The additional elements above “‘[a]dd nothing … that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’”. MPEP 2106.05 (I)(B)(quoting Alice).
As such, claim 1 recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Turning to the dependent claims, Examiner provides the following analysis:
Claim 2 recites “2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the determining comprises: performing at least one of a Boolean database search, a natural language search, or a vector similarity algorithm on the plurality of stored schemas against the first natural language query.” This element recites insignificant extra solution (i.e. mere data gathering) and thus does not integrate the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). This element also recites storing and retrieving information in memory and thus recites a WURC computer function. See 2106.05(d)(II). As such, it does not recite an inventive concept. See id.
Claim 3 recites “3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the generating comprises: updating, in response to a failed construction verification, the initial action sequence of the initial output schema to the deterministic action sequence.” This element merely requires evaluation of whether a failed construction verification occurs and an evaluation and/or judgment of how to update the initial action sequence based on this failure. Examiner finds this element can be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
Claim 4 recites “4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the generating comprises: using, in response to a positive construction verification, the initial action sequence as the deterministic action sequence.” Examiner finds this element generally links the abstract idea to the field of use of Large Language Models and thus does not integrate the exception or recite an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 5 recites “5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the second natural language query further comprises information related to the particular context.” This element merely recites results of the evaluation and/or judgment being performed.
Claim 6 recites “6. The computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the information related to the particular context comprises at least one of a user manual, an enterprise repository, or expert information.” This element merely recites results of the evaluation and/or judgment being performed.
Claim 7 recites “7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: executing the final output schema to obtain the deterministic result for the target procedure.” This element recites mere instructions to apply the exception (i.e. it equivalent to “apply it”). See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, this element fails to integrate the exception and fails to recite an inventive concept. See id.
Claim 8 recites “8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the target procedure comprises diagnosing or troubleshooting an issue with an industrial machine.” This element merely describes what is being observed and/or evaluated.
Claim 9 recites “9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the receiving the query comprises: mining information regarding the particular context to obtain the target procedure.” This element generally links the abstract idea to the field of use of data mining. As such, it fails to integrate the exception and fails to recite an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 9 recites “and constructing the natural language query based on the mining.” This element merely requires observation and evaluation of the mined data and an evaluation and/or judgment as to how to construct the NL query based on the data.
Claim 10 recites “10. The computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the mining comprises mining at least one of conversation data or video data related to the particular context.” This element generally links the abstract idea to the field of use of data mining. As such, it fails to integrate the exception and fails to recite an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 18 recites (emphasis added):
18. A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, from a schema management platform, a natural language query identifying a first procedure in a first context and a reference schema for the first procedure, wherein the reference schema defines a deterministic action sequence for performing a second procedure in a second context
generating an initial output schema based on the natural language query, the initial output schema defining an initial action sequence for performing the first procedure;
and sending, to the schema management platform, the initial output schema, wherein the initial output schema is used to generate a final output schema that defines a deterministic action sequence for performing the first procedure and the final output schema provides a deterministic result when executed.
and assigning, by an orchestrator, a plurality of agents to execute the final output schema;
instructing a first agent to perform a first action within the deterministic action sequence to obtain an agent decision;
determining, based on the agent decision, one or more additional actions within the deterministic action sequence to perform;
instructing one or more additional agents to perform the one or more additional actions to obtain a final schema result;
and completing the target procedure based on the final schema result.
Examiner finds that the emphasized portions of claim 18 above recite an abstract idea—namely, mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)and (III):
Accordingly, the ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions
When read as a whole, the recited limitations are directed to using mental steps to observe, evaluate, and make judgements about electronic data
Taking each element individually, Examiner provides the following analysis:
The element “generating an initial output schema based on the natural language query, the initial output schema defining an initial action sequence for performing the first procedure” merely requires observation and evaluation of the NL query and an evaluation/judgment as to how to generate the initial output schema based on the evaluation of the NL query.
The element “assigning, . . . a plurality of agents to execute the final output schema” merely requires judgment on the part of a human as to which agent is assigned to execute the final output schema. Examiner finds this element can be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
The element “instructing a first agent to perform a first action within the deterministic action sequence to obtain an agent decision” merely requires human judgment as to the instructions that are needed for a first agent to perform a first action. Examiner finds this element can be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
The element “determining, based on the agent decision, one or more additional actions within the deterministic action sequence to perform” merely requires observation and evaluation of the decision and an evaluation/judgment as to what additional action to take. Examiner finds this element can be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
The element “instructing one or more additional agents to perform the one or more additional actions to obtain a final schema result; and” merely requires human evaluation/judgment as to what instructions are required to “perform the one or more additional actions to obtain a final schema result. . .”Examiner finds this element can be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
As such, claim 18 recites an abstract idea.
Turning to the additional elements, the element “18. A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, from a schema management platform, a natural language query identifying a first procedure in a first context and a reference schema for the first procedure, wherein the reference schema defines a deterministic action sequence for performing a second procedure in a second context” recites insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, it does not integrate the exception. This element recites receiving or transmitting data over a network and thus recites a WURC computer function. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).As such, it does not recite an inventive concept.
The element and “sending, to the schema management platform, the initial output schema, wherein the initial output schema is used to generate a final output schema that defines a deterministic action sequence for performing the first procedure and the final output schema provides a deterministic result when executed.” This element recites insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, it does not integrate the exception. This element recites receiving or transmitting data over a network and thus recites a WURC computer function. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). As such, it does not recite an inventive concept. Examiner finds “wherein the initial output schema is used to generate a final output schema that defines a deterministic action sequence for performing the first procedure and the final output schema provides a deterministic result when executed” recites an intended result and thus has no patentable weight2.
Examiner finds “by an orchestrator” generally links the abstract idea to the field of use of agents/LLMs/generative AI and thus does not integrate the exception or recite an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The element “completing the target procedure based on the final schema result” recites mere instructions to apply the exception. As such, it fails to integrate the exception and fails to recite an inventive concept.
The additional elements “‘[a]dd nothing … that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’”. MPEP 2106.05 (I)(B)(quoting Alice). Thus, claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 19 recites “19. The computer-implemented method of claim 18,wherein the generating comprises: employing one or more agents to action the natural language query.” This element generally links the abstract idea the field of use of LLMs/generative AI/agents and thus does not integrate the exception and does not recite an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 20 recites “20. The computer-implemented method of claim 19, wherein the generating further comprises: receiving, from the one or more agents, an additional prompt for iterative processing, wherein the initial output schema is based on the natural language query and the additional prompt.” This element recites insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, it does not integrate the exception. This element recites receiving or transmitting data over a network and thus recites a WURC computer function. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). As such, it does not recite an inventive concept.
The additional elements “‘[a]dd nothing … that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’”. MPEP 2106.05 (I)(B)(quoting Alice). Thus, claims 19-20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues
Response to 35 U.S.C. $101 Rejections
In response, it is respectfully submitted that claims 1-11 and 18-20 include specific claim limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, at least by improving functionality of a computing system.
This argument is not persuasive. Examiner finds there are no additional elements in the claimed invention in claims 1 and 18 that reflect improvements to a computing system and/or technology disclosed in Applicant’s specification.
Applicant further argues
In Desjardins, the Appeals Review Panel found claims eligible because they recited a specific method of training that resulted in a technological improvement (e.g., reduced storage, prevention of forgetting). Similarly, the present claim 1 recites determining a reference schema for a target procedure from among a plurality of stored schemas, wherein each schema of the plurality of stored schemas defines a respective deterministic action sequence for performing a respective procedure in a respective context, which results in improved and faster retrieval and selection of preferred outputs and responses, as described in paragraph 0038 of the specification.
The element “determining a reference schema for a target procedure from among a plurality of stored schemas, wherein each schema of the plurality of stored schemas defines a respective deterministic action sequence for performing a respective procedure in a respective context” is a mental process. See analysis in above 101 rejection. It is not an additional element. See id. As such, it cannot recite significantly more. See MPEP 2106.04(d) (“A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.”); (emphasis added); see also MPEP 2106.05 (II). (“. . it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself . . . is not an improvement in technology.”); see also MPEP 2106.05(a) (“It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” ). Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Thus, like Desjardins, the claims are directed to a technical improvement in computer functionality.” There are no additional elements claim 1 or 18 that reflect an improvement to computer functionality disclosed in the specification or otherwise. Additionally, unlike Desjardins, there are no elements in claim 1 or claim 18 that improve the training of machine learning models. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues
Request for Interview
If the Examiner believes that this application is not in condition for allowance in view of this response, the Applicant requests an examiner interview.
If Applicant wishes to have an interview after this action is mailed, then Examiner recommends contacting the Examiner via phone or via AIR (see below). Request for interview before this final office action is mailed is denied.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been address above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-17 are allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT M PHILLIPS, III whose telephone number is (571)270-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 10a-6:30pm EST M-F.
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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/ALBERT M PHILLIPS, III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
1 See MPEP 2111.04
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:
(A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses;
(B) “wherein” clauses; and
(C) “whereby” clauses.
The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. > See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(finding that a “wherein” clause limited a process claim where the clause gave “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps”). < In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. However, the court noted (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) that a “‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’” Id.
(emphasis added).
2 See id.
Prosecution Insights