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 .
This office action is in response to the claimed amendment filed on April 13, 2026, in which claims 1-9 and 11-20 are presented for further examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 13, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 and 11-20 have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Remark
After further reviewed applicant’s arguments in light of the original specification. It is conceivable that the amendment of claims 1-9 and 11-20 does not integrate into a practical application that would render eligibility of the claims under 35 USC 101. Note, the claimed invention is involved in verifying whether a query request is authorized by an instructional credential, forwards the query request to an LLM only if authorized, the LLM would analyze the instruction against operational constraints for a target application, then if the instruction contains an interference command likely to cause an interference event, removes that command and produces a modified instruction. However, there is not end result under the condition when the determining the query request is not authorized by an instructional credential. Applicant asserted that the claimed invention provides a specific technical benefit as disclosed within the specification, namely an evaluation of LLM-generated instructions in view of operational constraints/safety standards for the particular computing environment in which the computer application is running without lay out the benefit. The process of checking whether a query request is authorized by an instructional credential and forwards the query request to an LLM only if authorized is not a solution because the claim does not provide any solution of what happens if the instruction does not contain an interference that would not cause an interference event. (See Ex-parte Schulhauser).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The independent claims 1, 13 and 20 recite “determining, by the computing system, that the request satisfies an instructional credential that verifies whether the instruction is to be executed by the computer application; transmitting, based on determining that the request satisfies the instructional credential, the query to the LLM; determining, by the computing system, that the instruction further comprises an interference command; and modifying, based on determining that the instruction comprises the interference command, the instruction by removing the interference command to generate a modified instruction”. There is no end result under the condition when determining that the request does not satisfy an instructional credential and when determining that the instruction does not comprise an interference command. The independent claims 1. 13 and 20 are therefore indefinite under these conditions. (See Ex-parte Schulhauser)..
Claims 2-9, 11-12 and 14-19 are rejected for incorporated the deficiency of their respective base claims by dependency.
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 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method
Claims 8-14 are directed to a computer system.
Claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Therefore, claims 1-9 and 11-20 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong One (Judicial exception recited)
The limitation “determining, by the computing system, that the request satisfies an instructional credential that verifies whether the instruction is to be executed by the computer application” in claims 1, 13 and 20, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. One can manually verify if a query request satisfy an instructional credential.
The limitation “determining, by the computing system, that the instruction further comprises an interference command, wherein the interference command, in response to execution by the computer application, would result in an interference event” in claims 1, 13 and 20, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. One can manually verify if the instruction comprises the interference command.
The limitation “evaluating the instruction in view of an operational constraint for the computer application” in claims 1, 13 and 20, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. One can manually verify the instruction in view of an operational constraint.
The limitation “identifying the interference command within the instruction based on evaluating the instruction in view of the operational constraint” in claims 1, 13 and 20, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. One can manually identify an interference command within the instruction.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
That the method is "implemented by a computing system” is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitation “obtaining, by a computing system comprising one or more processor devices, a request comprising a query for a large language model (LLM) to generate an instruction for execution by a computer application” amounts to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “transmitting, based on determining that the request satisfies the instructional credential, the query to the LLM a large language model (LLM);receiving, from the LLM, an output comprising the instruction for the computer application” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result and the mere outputting of data, and do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “modifying, based on determining that the instruction comprises the interference command, the instruction by removing the interference command to generate a modified instruction” amounts to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “causing, by the computing system, execution of the modified instruction by the computer application” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result and the mere outputting of data, and do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “a memory, processor device and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the “obtaining, modifying and causing ……” identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. 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); … 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);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the “transmitting ….” identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional in displaying information as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), " iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93" and "i. … transmitting data over a network, …Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … 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)".
The “a memory, processor device and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim appears to be ineligible.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The remaining independent claims 13 and 20 fall short the 35 USC 101 requirement under the same rationale.
The dependent claims 2-11 and 14-19 when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites “wherein causing execution of the modified instruction comprises transmitting, by the computing system, the modified instruction to the computer application”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for transmitting the modified instruction to the computer application, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 3 recites “wherein determining that the request satisfies the instructional credential comprises determining that the computing system comprises an authorization credential configured to allow modification of the instruction”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for having a dependency for the first and second managed directories, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 4 recites “wherein determining that the request satisfies the instructional credential comprises determining that a list of authorized agents for providing instructions to the computer application comprises at least one of: the LLM or the computing system”. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites “wherein determining that the instruction comprises the interference command comprises determining that the instruction would allocate memory resources away from or toward the computer application”. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the interference event comprises an insufficient amount of memory resources available to at least one of: the computing system, the computer application, the LLM, a second computing system having memory resources at least partially dependent on an amount of resources allocated to the computer application”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for the amount of memory resources available to at least one of: the computing system, the computer application, the LLM, a second computing system having memory resources at least partially dependent on an amount of resources allocated to the computer application, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 7 recites “wherein determining that the instruction comprises the interference command comprises determining that the instruction would allocate processing resources away from or toward the computer application”. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the interference event comprises an amount of processing resources allocated to the computer application that are outside a threshold range of processing resources”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for the amount of processing resources allocated to the computer application that are outside a threshold range of processing resources, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 9 recites “wherein determining that the instruction comprises the interference command comprises determining that a second computing system having computing resources at least partially dependent on an amount of computing resources allocated to the computer application would be allocated an amount of computing resources below a threshold amount”. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 11 recites “generating, based on removing the interference command, an alert comprising an indication that the instruction was modified”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for generating an alert comprising an indication that the instruction was modified, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 12 recites “wherein obtaining the request comprises receiving the request via a user interface”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for receiving the request via a user interface, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 14 recites “transmit the modified instruction to the computer application”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for transmitting the modified instruction to the computer application, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 15 recites “determine that the request satisfies the instructional credential, the processor device is further to determine that the computing device comprises an authorization credential configured to allow modification of the instruction”. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the interference event comprises an insufficient amount of memory resources available to at least one of: the computing device, the computer application, the LLM, a second computing device having memory resources at least partially dependent on an amount of resources allocated to the computer application”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for the insufficient amount of memory resources available to at least one of: the computing device, the computer application, the LLM, a second computing device having memory resources at least partially dependent on an amount of resources allocated to the computer application, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 17 recites “determine that the instruction comprises the interference command, the processor device is further to determine that the instruction would allocate processing resources away from or toward the computer application”. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the interference event comprises an amount of processing resources allocated to the computer application that are outside a threshold range of processing resources”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for the amount of processing resources allocated to the computer application that are outside a threshold range of processing resources, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 19 recites “generate, based on removing the interference command, an alert comprising an indication that the instruction was modified”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for generate an alert comprising an indication that the instruction was modified, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11792291 B1 (involved in determining a set of parameters associated with an incoming HTTP request, where the parameters include a user credential, an incoming path, and an HTTP
method. A determination is made whether the request is valid based on the user credential or the HTTP method, and a rule that matches the HTTP request is identified, where the rule maps the incoming path to an outgoing path associated with a micro-service. An outgoing HTTP request that specifies the outgoing path is generated (2018). The outgoing request is issued (2020) to cause the service to perform an action requested in the incoming request).
US 11582036 B1 (involved in generating a signed and encrypted credential data packet operable for authentication with an application executing in a network from a credential data packet and based on a resource file stored at an endpoint device, where the file includes a set of encryption keys associated with the application. The credential data packet is encrypted by the device with a device key associated with the device to generate the signed and encrypted credential data packet. The encrypted credential data packet is signed by an endpoint device management (EDM) key and extracted from the encryptions keys. The signed and encrypted credential data packet is sent to the application via a trusted communication channel by the device. An authorization packet is received from the application via the channel based on authentication of the signed and encrypted credential data packet in response to the signed and encrypted credential data packet by the device).
US 20210075794 (involved in obtaining an access capability specification that specifies an access capability is installed in a guarded computing system. An access attempt data is gathered representing detected activity that attempted to exercise the access capability. The access capability has not been exercised sufficiently is computationally determined based on an access capability exercise sufficiency criterion. The security of the guarded computing system is enhanced based on a result of the determining).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN M CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-4032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30a-10p(Midflex).
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.
/JEAN M CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 June 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights