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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101 rejections, on pages 12-14 of “Remarks” applicant contends that the amended claim 1 does not recite abstract ideas under Step 2A Prong 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding claim 1, the previously identified limitations in the prior office action recite mental processes because under the broadest reasonable interpretation the identified limitations include a step of evaluation and judgement and could be performed mentally or with pen and paper which is either a mental process of evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106)). For example, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation determines whether a workflow portion from a plurality of workflow portions is structured or unstructured can be performed mentally like making a determination on whether queries are formatted or not formatted. Similarly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations of determining whether to make a structured or unstructured response based on the identified workflow type can be performed mentally like making formatted or unformatted outputs based on whether a query is formatted or not formatted. The judicial exception limitations in claim 1 are similar to the limitations in claims 8 and 14 and the reasons above apply to claims 8 and 14. Applicant argues that claim 8 cannot be performed mentally due to the mention of the judicial exceptions being performed on a no-code user interface. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the no-code user interface is interpreted as merely reciting steps that apply generic computer components to perform an abstract idea, which represents merely adding the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, which are not indicative of an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
On pages 14-17 of “Remarks” applicant contends that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions under Step 2B. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant contends that the claimed invention’s ability to determine between structured and unstructured inputs can provide the improvement of “achieves results significantly faster and more reliably…eliminate the software engineering effort to capture the structured parameters from an unscripted, unstructured conversation” see Specification paragraph 46. However, the independent claims do not appear to claim the proposed technical improvements. For instance, claim 1, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, merely recites determining the type of workflow and then outputting different responses based on the type. Claim 1 does not appear to show the connection between the different types of workflows and achieving faster and more reliable results or eliminating the software engineering overhead. Additionally, applicant’s arguments appear to mention that the technical improvement is derived from the efficiency gained from having different outputs based on determining whether the workflow is structured or unstructured. It appears that the proposed improvement in this case is only realized because of the identified mental process limitation of determining between structured and unstructured workflows used in the claim. The judicial exception (mental process) itself cannot provide the improvement. See MPEP: “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” (MPEP 2106.05(a)). As noted in the previous office action, the independent claims recite additional elements that do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejections are not persuasive.
Regarding the 103 rejections, applicant’s arguments about reference(s) Qin have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Alleged no teaching of a list of structured parameters to be captured
In Remarks/Arguments pg. 10, applicant contends:
“Unlike independent claim 1, which recites "execute the workflow portion as unstructured based on the message, a task description and a list of structured parameters to be captured, when the workflow portion is determined to be unstructured, to produce an unstructured response via a generative artificial intelligence model," the cited references fail to disclose or suggest such a recitation. More specifically, the Office Action at pp. 27-28 acknowledges that Young does not disclose, but alleges that Qin discloses this claim recitation at paragraph [0019], which states "[i]n embodiments, the augmented prompt may include the original query, contextual information for answering the query, the retrieved augmentation information, and/or a request to answer the original query based on the contextual information and/or the retrieved augmentation information." The Office Action, however, is not clear on how this list of items in Qin is being mapped to the claim recitation "list of structured parameters to be captured". At best, Qin appears to merely disclose retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) with added contextual information for answering the original query, which is described in paragraph [0039]: In embodiments, contextual information 215 may describe the context of the user (e.g., user identifier, user role, user profile, user location, browsing history, etc.) and/or the context of the query (e.g., the current webpage, the product or service
associated with the current webpage, query timestamp information, etc.).
Paragraph [0046] further mentions that contextual information can include "e.g., the current webpage, the product or service of the current webpage, temporal information, location, etc." Nothing in this contextual information, however, discloses, suggests or even relates to "a list of structured parameters to be captured". In other words, providing contextual information to better retrieve documents to augment the query (e.g., from dataset(s) 112) or to generate an augmented prompt (e.g., augmented prompt 236) entirely fails to disclose or suggest structured parameters to be captured by such prompts. Neither Cai nor Baeuml remedy the deficiencies of Qin and Young.”
The relevant claim limitations appear to be: a task description and a list of structured parameters to be captured, in claim 1. As noted in the previous Office Action, Qin teaches:
(Qin, ⁋19, “In on implementation, a query may be used to retrieve pieces of augmentation information that may be included in a prompt to the LLM…In embodiments, the augmented prompt may include the original query, contextual information for answering the query, the retrieved augmentation information, and/or a request to answer the original query based on the contextual information and/or the retrieved augmentation information.”).
In other words, the elements that make up a prompt are interpreted as list of structured parameters to be captured because, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a prompt is interpreted as having set fields and requirements to be entered before passing the prompt to a language model. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Regarding claim 1, in step 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites A processor-readable non-transitory medium. The claim recites an article of manufacture. An article of manufacture method is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In Step 2A, Prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process or mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components:
determine whether a workflow portion from a plurality of workflow portions is structured or unstructured; (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation includes a step of evaluation and judgement and could be performed mentally like determining if a query is formatted or not formatted, which is either a mental process of evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106)).
execute the workflow portion as structured based on the message when the workflow portion is determined to be structured, to produce a structured response; (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation includes a step of evaluation and judgement and could be performed mentally like giving a response to a formatted query, which is either a mental process of evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106)).
and execute the workflow portion as unstructured based on the message, a task description and a list of structured parameters to be captured, when the workflow portion is determined to be unstructured, to produce an unstructured response… (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation includes a step of evaluation and judgement and could be performed mentally like giving a response to an unformatted query, which is either a mental process of evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106)).
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers activities classified under Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection (III)) or Mathematical concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection (I)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In Step 2A, Prong 2 of the 101 analysis, set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
A processor-readable non-transitory medium storing code representing instructions to be executed by a processor, the code comprising code to cause the processor to: (i.e., the generic computer components recited in this limitation merely add the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
repeat the following during a session with a user compute device: receive a message from the user compute device; (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation of receiving a message is mere data gathering, which is an insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
…via a generative artificial intelligence model. (i.e., the generic computer components recited in this limitation merely add the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
Since the claim does not contain any other additional elements, that amount to integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In Step 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception:
Regarding limitation (V), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recite steps of mere data gathering, which has been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Specifically, the courts have recognized computer functions directed to mere data gathering as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity when considering evidence in view of Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018), see USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum (April 2018)).
Examiner uses Berkheimer: Option 2, a citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) as noting well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the additional elements:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Further, limitation (IV) merely recites steps that apply generic computer components to perform an abstract idea, which represents merely adding the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, which are not indicative of an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Similarly, limitation (VI) merely recite steps that apply a generic generative machine learning model, which represents merely adding the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, which are not indicative of an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Considering additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, it is dependent upon claim 1 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, claim 2 recites maintain state while executing the workflow portion as structured and while executing the workflow portion as unstructured. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation recites storing data while executing portions which is a step of evaluation and judgement which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. The steps of evaluation and judgement are mental processes thus, claim 2 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, it is dependent upon claim 1 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, claim 3 recites each workflow portion from the plurality of workflow portions is associated with at least one required parameter. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation recites associating an element to another element which is a step of evaluation and judgement which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. The steps of evaluation and judgement are mental processes thus, claim 3 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, it is dependent upon claim 3 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, claim 4 recites each workflow portion from the plurality of workflow portions is further associated with at least one optional parameter. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation recites associating an element to an optional element which is a step of evaluation and judgement which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. The steps of evaluation and judgement are mental processes thus, claim 4 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, it is dependent upon claim 1 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, claim 5 recites wherein the plurality of workflow portions is defined in a no-code user interface. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, which merely recite steps that apply a generic visual user interface, which represents merely adding the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, which are not indicative of an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, claim 5 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, it is dependent upon claim 1 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, claim 6 recites the session is a first session,the generative artificial intelligence model is a large language model (LLM),the unstructured response produced via the LLM includes a plurality of structured values associated with the list of structured parameters and during a second session between an entity and the LLM, the second session being shorter than the first session. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, merely recite steps that apply a generic LLM to generate a response based on unformatted data, which represents merely adding the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, which are not indicative of an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, claim 6 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, it is dependent upon claim 1 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, claim 7 recites wherein: the generative artificial intelligence model is a large language model (LLM). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, merely recite steps that apply a generic LLM to generate a responses, which represents merely adding the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, which are not indicative of an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 7 also recites and the code to execute the workflow portion as unstructured includes code to: send a plurality of prompts to the LLM based on the task description and the list of structured parameters associated with the workflow portion that is unstructured and that is from the plurality of workflow portions, and update state information associated with that workflow portion and output from the LLM based on the plurality of prompts. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation recites sending a plurality of prompts to a model and updating data using outputs which are steps of evaluation and judgement which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. The steps of evaluation and judgement are mental processes thus, claim 7 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, in step 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites A processor-readable non-transitory medium. The claim recites an article of manufacture. An article of manufacture method is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In Step 2A, Prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process or mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components:
and define a plurality of workflow portions of a workflow based on the plurality of structured workflow portion indicators, the at least one unstructured workflow portion indicator, and the plurality of connection indicators. (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation includes a step of evaluation and judgement and could be performed mentally like determining if a query is formatted or unformatted based on an indicator, which is either a mental process of evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106)).
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers activities classified under Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection (III)) or Mathematical concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection (I)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In Step 2A, Prong 2 of the 101 analysis, set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
A processor-readable non-transitory medium storing code representing instructions to be executed by a processor, the code comprising code to cause the processor to: (i.e., the generic computer components recited in this limitation merely add the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
…through a no-code user interface… (i.e., the generic computer components recited in this limitation merely add the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
receive,…, a plurality of structured workflow portion indicators associated with a plurality of structured workflow portions, receive,…, an indicator of at least one unstructured workflow portion indicator, (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation of receiving a plurality of indicators is mere data gathering, which is an insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
the at least one unstructured workflow portion indicator configured to receive a task description and a list of structured parameters that is to be identified by a generative artificial intelligence model, (i.e., the generic computer components recited in this limitation merely add the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
receive,…, a plurality of connection indicators, each connection indicator from the plurality of connection indicators identifying a workflow order between at least two collectively of (1) at least one structured workflow portion from the plurality of structured workflow portions or (2) the at least one unstructured workflow portion, (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation of receiving a plurality of connection indicators is mere data gathering, which is an insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
Since the claim does not contain any other additional elements, that amount to integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In Step 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception:
Regarding limitations (IV) and (VI), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recite steps of mere data gathering, which has been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Specifically, the courts have recognized computer functions directed to mere data gathering as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity when considering evidence in view of Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018), see USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum (April 2018)).
Examiner uses Berkheimer: Option 2, a citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) as noting well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the additional elements:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Further, limitations (II) and (III) merely recites steps that apply generic computer components to perform an abstract idea, which represents merely adding the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, which are not indicative of an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Similarly, limitation (V) merely recites steps that apply a generic generative machine learning model, which represents merely adding the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, which are not indicative of an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Considering additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, it is dependent upon claim 8 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, claim 9 recites the code to receive the plurality of structured workflow portion indicators includes code to receive the plurality of structured workflow portion indicators through a drag-and-drop function of the no-code user interface, the code to receive the indicator of the at least one unstructured workflow portion includes code to receive the indicator of the at least one unstructured workflow portion through the drag-and-drop function of the no-code user interface, and the code to receive the plurality of connection indicators includes the code to receive the plurality of connection indicators through the drop-and-drop function of the no-code user interface. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations merely recite steps of mere data gathering, which has been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional functions (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, claim 9 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, it is dependent upon claim 8 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, claim 10 recites code to cause the processor to: receive a plurality of structured values based on the task description and the list of structured parameters, each structured value from the plurality of structured values being associated with a structured parameter from the plurality of structured parameters. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations merely recite steps of mere data gathering, which has been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional functions (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, claim 10 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, it is dependent upon claim 8 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, claim 11 recites the generative artificial intelligence model is a large language model (LLM), and the task description indicates a task for completion by the LLM during execution of the at least one unstructured workflow portion, the task description associated with at least one structured value from a plurality of structured values that is obtained during a session by the LLM with an entity and that is associated with the plurality of structured parameters. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, merely recite steps that apply a generic LLM to generate a response based on unformatted data, which represents merely adding the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, which are not indicative of an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, claim 11 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, it is dependent upon claim 8 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, claim 12 recites the generative artificial intelligence model is a large language model (LLM), the task description listing a plurality of tasks for completion by the LLM during execution of the at least one unstructured workflow portion, each task from the plurality of tasks associated with at least one structured value from a plurality of structured values obtained during a session by the LLM with an entity,. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, merely recite steps that apply a generic LLM to generate a response based on unformatted data, which represents merely adding the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, which are not indicative of an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 12 further recites the code further comprises code to cause the processor to: receive, from the LLM, the plurality of structured values in response to the session by the LLM. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation merely recites steps of mere data gathering, which has been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional functions (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, claim 12 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 8.
Regarding claim 13, it is dependent upon claim 8 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, claim 13 recites a connection indicator from the plurality of connection indicators identifies a first workflow order between a structured workflow portion from the plurality of structured workflow portions and an unstructured workflow portion from the at least one unstructured workflow portion, the first workflow order being the structured workflow portion, then the unstructured workflow portion, and then returning to the structured workflow portion. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation recites determining a workflow order using formatted and unformatted queries which is a step of evaluation and judgement which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. The steps of evaluation and judgement are mental processes thus, claim 13 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 8.
Regarding claim 14, in step 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites A apparatus. The claim recites an apparatus. An apparatus is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In Step 2A, Prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process or mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components:
the structured-and-unstructured-logic module configured to determine, for each workflow portion from the plurality of workflow portions, whether the workflow portion is structured or unstructured, (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation includes a step of evaluation and judgement and could be performed mentally like determining if a query is formatted or not formatted, which is either a mental process of evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106)).
in response to determining that a workflow portion from the plurality of workflow portions is structured, the structured-and-unstructured-logic module configured to send to the orchestration engine an indication that that workflow portion is structured, (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation includes a step of evaluation and judgement and could be performed mentally like flagging a portion as formatted, which is either a mental process of evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106)).
in response to determining that a workflow portion from the plurality of workflow portions is unstructured, the structured-and-unstructured-logic module configured to send to the orchestration engine a task description and a list of structured parameters associated with that workflow portion, (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation includes a step of evaluation and judgement and could be performed mentally like flagging a portion as unformatted and requires further processing, which is either a mental process of evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106)).
in response to receiving the indication that a workflow portion from the plurality of workflow portions is structured, the orchestration engine configured to execute that workflow portion as structured to produce a structured response, (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation includes a step of evaluation and judgement and could be performed mentally like giving a response to a formatted portion, which is either a mental process of evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106)).
and (2) update state information associated with that workflow portion and output from the LLM based on the plurality of prompts. (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation includes a step of evaluation and judgement and could be performed mentally like storing data related to each portion, which is either a mental process of evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106)).
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers activities classified under Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection (III)) or Mathematical concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection (I)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In Step 2A, Prong 2 of the 101 analysis, set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
An apparatus, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing a structured-and-unstructured- logic module and an orchestration engine, (i.e., the generic computer components recited in this limitation merely add the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
in response to receiving the task description and the list of structured parameters associated with a workflow portion that is from the plurality of workflow portions and this is unstructured, (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation of receiving a description and parameters is mere data gathering, which is an insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
the orchestration engine configured to (1) send a plurality of prompts to a large language model (LLM) based on the task description and the list of structured parameters associated with that workflow portion (i.e., the generic computer components recited in this limitation merely add the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
Since the claim does not contain any other additional elements, that amount to integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In Step 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception:
Regarding limitation (VII), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recite steps of mere data gathering, which has been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Specifically, the courts have recognized computer functions directed to mere data gathering as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity when considering evidence in view of Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018), see USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum (April 2018)).
Examiner uses Berkheimer: Option 2, a citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) as noting well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the additional elements:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Further, limitation (VI) merely recites steps that apply generic computer components to perform an abstract idea, which represents merely adding the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, which are not indicative of an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Similarly, limitation (VIII) merely recites steps that apply a generic LLM, which represents merely adding the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, which are not indicative of an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Considering additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, it is dependent upon claim 14 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, claim 15 recites provide to the LLM each prompt from the plurality of prompts serially until the task description is satisfied and until a plurality of structured values associated with the list of structured parameters is received from the LLM. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation recites determining to supply inputs one at a time until a criterion is satisfied which is a step of evaluation and judgement which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. The steps of evaluation and judgement are mental processes thus, claim 15 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, it is dependent upon claim 14 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, claim 16 recites send the plurality of prompts to the LLM to cause the LLM to send to a user compute device a first plurality of messages associated with the plurality of prompts. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, merely recite steps that apply a generic LLM to generate a plurality of responses, which represents merely adding the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, which are not indicative of an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 12 further recites and to receive from the user compute device a second plurality of messages in response to the first plurality of messages, and the orchestration engine is configured to receive the second plurality of messages from the LLM,. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation merely recites steps of mere data gathering, which has been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional functions (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, claim 12 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 8. Claim 16 also recites and update the state information based on the second plurality of messages. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation recites updating stored information which is a step of evaluation and judgement which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. The steps of evaluation and judgement are mental processes thus, claim 16 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 14.
Regarding claim 17, it is dependent upon claim 14 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, claim 17 recites for each prompt from the plurality of prompts, (1) define that prompt based on the task description, the list of structured parameters and the state information at a first time,. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation recites creating multiple prompts which is a step of evaluation and judgement which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Claim 17 also recites (2) send that prompt to the LLM and receive a response from the LLM based on that prompt and at a second time after the first time,. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, merely recite steps that apply a generic LLM to generate a plurality of responses, which represents merely adding the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, which are not indicative of an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 17 further recites and (3) update the state information at a third time after the second time based on the response for that prompt. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation recites updating stored information which is a step of evaluation and judgement which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. The steps of evaluation and judgement are mental processes thus, claim 17 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 14.
Regarding claim 18, it is dependent upon claim 14 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, claim 18 recites iteratively repeat the following until the task description is satisfied by the LLM:(1) define a prompt from the plurality of based on the task description, any applicable prior response from the LLM, the list of structured parameters and the state information at that time,. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation recites creating multiple prompts which is a step of evaluation and judgement which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Claim 18 also recites (2) send that prompt to the LLM and receive a response from the LLM based on that prompt,. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, merely recite steps that apply a generic LLM to generate a plurality of responses, which represents merely adding the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, which are not indicative of an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 18 further recites (3) update the state information at that time based on the response for that prompt,. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation recites updating stored information which is a step of evaluation and judgement which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Claim 18 further recites (4) in response to the response satisfying the task description, ending the iteration and sending to the structured-and-unstructured-logic module a plurality of structured values associated with the list of structured parameters and based on the response and the any applicable prior responses from the LLM. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation recites sending feedback data when an answer is provided which is a step of evaluation and judgement which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. The steps of evaluation and judgement are mental processes thus, claim 18 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 14.
Regarding claim 19, it is dependent upon claim 14 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, claim 19 recites memory further storing a no-code user interface, the no-code user interface configured to. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, merely recite steps that apply a generic user interface, which represents merely adding the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, which are not indicative of an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 19 further recites receive a plurality of workflow portion indicators associated with the plurality of workflow portions before execution of the structured-and- unstructured-logic module and the orchestration engine with respect to the plurality of workflow portions. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation merely recites steps of mere data gathering, which has been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional functions (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, claim 19 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 14.
Regarding claim 20, it is dependent upon claim 14 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, claim 20 recites memory further storing a no-code user interface, the no-code user interface configured to. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, merely recite steps that apply a generic user interface, which represents merely adding the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, which are not indicative of an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 19 further recites receive (1) a plurality of structured workflow portion indicators associated with the plurality of workflow portions, (2) an indicator of at least one unstructured workflow portion associated with the plurality of workflow portions, and (3) a plurality of connection indicators associated with the plurality of structured workflow portion indicators and the indicator of the at least one unstructured workflow portion,. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation merely recites steps of mere data gathering, which has been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional functions (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Claim 20 further recites …define the plurality of workflow portions based on the plurality of structured workflow portion indicators, the indicator of the at least one unstructured workflow portion, and the plurality of connection indicators,…define the plurality of workflow portions before execution of the structured-and-unstructured-logic module and the orchestration engine with respect to the plurality of workflow portions. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation recites determining whether a portion is formatted or unformatted before execution which is a step of evaluation and judgement which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. The steps of evaluation and judgement are mental processes thus, claim 20 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 14.
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 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young, et al., Non-Patent Literature “Fusing Task-Oriented and Open-Domain Dialogues in Conversational Agents” (“Young”) in view of Qin, US Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0346256A1 (“Qin”).
Regarding claim 1, Young discloses:
repeat the following during a session with a user compute device: receive a message from the user compute device; (Young, pg. 11625 col. 2, “A multi-turn dialogue system generates a response R based on a multi-turn context C. In inter-mode dialogues [repeat the following during a session], C is composed of both TOD and ODD turns [with a user compute device: receive a message from the user compute device;]. In the FusedChat setting, R can be in either TOD mode or ODD mode, but has to be in only one of the two.”).
determine whether a workflow portion from a plurality of workflow portions is structured or unstructured; execute the workflow portion as structured based on the message when the workflow portion is determined to be structured, to produce a structured response; (Young, pg. 11623 col. 1, “We develop and evaluate two baseline models for this new setting: (1) The classification-based model. Two response generation models Mtod and Modd are independently trained on the turns of the respective modes. They generate the response of their respective mode given a conversational context; task-oriented dialogue, or TOD, is interpreted as a structured workflow portion (i.e. execut