DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 26 December 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. As such, claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 26 December 2024. These drawings have been accepted and considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “tools for performing specific search functions” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, “tools” are interpreted as “using one or more Large Language Models (LLMs) for making API calls” as described in the specification [0005 and 0044].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
A method comprising steps of:
receiving a question from a user device;
determining a level of complexity of the question;
tailoring a divide-and-conquer plan when the complexity of the question is determined to be higher than a lowest level of complexity; and
executing the divide-and-conquer plan to produce an answer to the question.
The claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. For example,
“receiving a question from a user device” in the context of this claim encompasses a person reading or hearing a question,
“determining a level of complexity of the question” in the context of this claim encompasses a person scoring the complexity of the question,
“tailoring a divide-and-conquer plan when the complexity of the question is determined to be higher than a lowest level of complexity” in the context of this claim encompasses a person upon determining it is complex, going ahead and breaking the questions down into parts which are easier to answer individually,
“executing the divide-and-conquer plan to produce an answer to the question” in the context of this claim encompasses a person breaking the questions down into parts which are easier to answer individually.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a user device.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims do not add limitations that would either integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or could help the Claim as a whole to amount to significantly more than the Abstract idea identified for the Independent Claim.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the question is directed to a software product operating in a network domain.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the question is directed to a software product operating in a network domain” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the questions is about software.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a software product
a network.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the lowest level of complexity is defined by questions pertaining to general information about the software product,
the general information including a) features of the software product, b) installation instructions regarding the software product, and/or c) recommended configuration settings of the software product.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the lowest level of complexity is defined by questions pertaining to general information about the software product” in the context of this claim encompasses a person deciding the question is general,
“the general information including a) features of the software product, b) installation instructions regarding the software product, and/or c) recommended configuration settings of the software product” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the question is regarding one of the items listed.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a software product.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the step of tailoring the divide-and-conquer plan involves using a Large Language Model (LLM).
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the step of tailoring the divide-and-conquer plan involves using a Large Language Model (LLM)” in the context of this claim encompasses a person using a LLM.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a Large Language Model (LLM).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
further comprising the step of feeding relevant context data from a knowledge base of a domain to the LLM using a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) procedure.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“further comprising the step of feeding relevant context data from a knowledge base of a domain to the LLM using a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) procedure” in the context of this claim encompasses a person obtaining data from a source and inputting it into an LLM.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a knowledge base
the LLM
a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
wherein the divide-and-conquer plan includes one or more flows of frames, the frames configured to invoke tools for performing specific search functions.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the divide-and-conquer plan includes one or more flows of frames, the frames configured to invoke tools for performing specific search functions” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring a search is requested if any step requires a search.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
tools for performing specific search functions.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein invoking the tools involves using one or more Large Language Models (LLMs) for making API calls.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein invoking the tools involves using one or more Large Language Models (LLMs) for making API calls” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the LLM makes API calls to do the search.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a Large Language Model.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
wherein, when the complexity of the question is determined to be at a high level,
the divide-and-conquer plan further includes generating a troubleshooting playbook for troubleshooting a software product operating in a network domain.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein, when the complexity of the question is determined to be at a high level” in the context of this claim encompasses a person deciding if the question is complex enough,
“the divide-and-conquer plan further includes generating a troubleshooting playbook for troubleshooting a software product operating in a network domain” in the context of this claim encompasses a person going ahead and generating a troubleshooting playbook manually.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a troubleshooting playbook
a software product
a network.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
wherein the divide-and-conquer plan includes obtaining operational parameters of a software product,
the operational parameters including one or more of an identity of a user of the software product, a timeframe when the software product is used, a location where the software product is used, and details related to user experience.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the divide-and-conquer plan includes obtaining operational parameters of a software product” in the context of this claim encompasses a person getting the parameters,
“the operational parameters including one or more of an identity of a user of the software product, a timeframe when the software product is used, a location where the software product is used, and details related to user experience” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring one of the items listed is a parameter.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a software product.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
wherein obtaining operational parameters includes interacting with the user and
reading data from one or more data sources.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein obtaining operational parameters includes interacting with the user” in the context of this claim encompasses a person talking to another,
“reading data from one or more data sources” in the context of this claim encompasses a person getting data from a source.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
one or more data sources.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the method is executed by an Artificial Intelligence (AI) assistant or copilot that is configured to use Natural Language Processing (NLP).
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the method is executed by an Artificial Intelligence (AI) assistant or copilot that is configured to use Natural Language Processing (NLP)” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring a NLP is used with the AI.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
an Artificial Intelligence (AI) assistant
a copilot
a Natural Language Processor (NLP).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the question is directed to a software product operating in a network domain, and
wherein the lowest level of complexity is defined by questions pertaining to general information about the software product,
the general information including a) features of the software product, b) installation instructions regarding the software product, and/or c) recommended configuration settings of the software product.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the question is directed to a software product operating in a network domain” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the question is about software,
“wherein the lowest level of complexity is defined by questions pertaining to general information about the software product” in the context of this claim encompasses a person scoring general questions as low,
“the general information including a) features of the software product, b) installation instructions regarding the software product, and/or c) recommended configuration settings of the software product” in the context of this claim encompasses a person scoring these elements listed as low.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a software product
a network.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the divide-and-conquer plan is tailored using a Large Language Model (LLM), and
wherein the AI assistant is further configured to feed relevant context data from a knowledge base of a domain to the LLM using a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) procedure.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the divide-and-conquer plan is tailored using a Large Language Model (LLM)” in the context of this claim encompasses a person using a LLM to tailor the plan,
“wherein the AI assistant is further configured to feed relevant context data from a knowledge base of a domain to the LLM using a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) procedure” in the context of this claim encompasses a person using a RAG and feeding the result to the LLM.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a Large Language Model (LLM)
the AI assistant
a knowledge base
a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the server is a domain-based server,
wherein the question is directed to a software product operating in a network domain, and
wherein the lowest level of complexity is defined by questions pertaining to general information about the software product.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the server is a domain-based server” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring use of a domain-based server,
“wherein the question is directed to a software product operating in a network domain” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the question is about software,
“wherein the lowest level of complexity is defined by questions pertaining to general information about the software product” in the context of this claim encompasses a person assigning low score for general information.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a domain-based server
a software product
a network.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 11, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solodovnikov et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20260087309 A1), hereinafter Solodovnikov, in view of Soceanu et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20250371014 A1), hereinafter Soceanu.
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 17, Solodovnikov teaches a method, an Artificial Intelligence (AI) assistant, and a server (Solodovnikov in [0086] teaches a method, in [0019] teaches using a large-scale LLM AI, and in [0105] teaches using a server)
[claim 12 only] configured to:
[claim 17 only] comprising:
[claim 17 only] a processing device (Solodovnikov in [0107] teaches using processors);
[claim 17 only] memory configured to store an Artificial Intelligence (AI) assistant having instructions enabling the processing device to (Solodovnikov in [0107] teaches using a physical computing device which includes a memory, and comprise instructions executable by one or more hardware processors to perform any of the operations, or portions thereof)
comprising steps of:
receiving a question from a user device (Solodovnikov in [0068] teaches a user question is received, and in [0064] teaches from a standard consumer device);
[determining a level of complexity] of the question (Solodovnikov in [0064] teaches allowing a standard consumer device to answer complex topic questions with accuracy comparable to the ChatGPT-X model (or other large scale models) trained on trillion-plus parameters, where it is expected that text classification prediction for a user question will not always categorize the question with 100% accuracy);
tailoring a divide-and-conquer plan when the complexity of the question is determined to be higher than a lowest level of complexity (Solodovnikov in [0064] teaches a “divide-and-conquer” strategy for LLMs can effectively allow a standard consumer device to answer complex topic questions with accuracy comparable to the ChatGPT-X model (or other large scale models) trained on trillion-plus parameters, for instance, given a user question with enough ambiguity or terminology in several fields, the text classification model (i.e. the classifier) may pick the highest prediction value for the classification and load the corresponding context-specific LLM to handle the request);
and
executing the divide-and-conquer plan to produce an answer to the question (Solodovnikov in [0064] teaches a “divide-and-conquer” strategy for LLMs can effectively allow a standard consumer device to answer complex topic questions with accuracy comparable to the ChatGPT-X model (or other large scale models) trained on trillion-plus parameters, for instance, given a user question with enough ambiguity or terminology in several fields, the text classification model (i.e. the classifier) may pick the highest prediction value for the classification and load the corresponding context-specific LLM to handle the request).
Solodovnikov does not teach, however Soceanu teaches
determining a level of complexity of the question (Soceanu in [0021] teaches generating a complexity score indicating an extent of complexity needed to process the query request, and may be low or high complexity).
Soceanu is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of queries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Solodovnikov further in view of Soceanu to allow for generating a complexity score indicating an extent of complexity. Motivation to do so would allow for determining where to process a query (Soceanu [0021]).
Regarding claim 4, Solodovnikov, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
Solodovnikov further teaches
wherein the step of tailoring the divide-and-conquer plan involves using a Large Language Model (LLM) (Solodovnikov in [0064] teaches a “divide-and-conquer” strategy for LLMs can effectively allow a standard consumer device to answer complex topic questions with accuracy comparable to the ChatGPT-X model (or other large scale models) trained on trillion-plus parameters, for instance, given a user question with enough ambiguity or terminology in several fields, the text classification model (i.e. the classifier) may pick the highest prediction value for the classification and load the corresponding context-specific LLM to handle the request).
Regarding claim 11, Solodovnikov, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
Solodovnikov further teaches
wherein the method is executed by an Artificial Intelligence (AI) assistant or copilot that is configured to use Natural Language Processing (NLP) (Solodovnikov in [0110] teaches semantically analyzing the language included in the user query, and in [0019] teaches using a large-scale LLM AI).
Claims 2, 3, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solodovnikov, in view of Soceanu, in view of Jung et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20240179218 A1), hereinafter Jung.
Regarding claim 2, Solodovnikov, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
Solodovnikov, as modified above, does not teach, however Jung teaches
wherein the question is directed to a software product operating in a network domain (Jung in [0034] teaches using configuration data regarding software products within a network domain, and in [0150] teaches servicing a request to troubleshoot an issue in the network with regard to software products).
Jung is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of troubleshooting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Solodovnikov, as modified above, further in view of Jung to allow for troubleshooting an issue. Motivation to do so would allow for a guiding tour which includes guided support that allows the user to follow the most efficient path (faster than another path) for performing an intended task (Jung [0155]).
Regarding claim 3, Solodovnikov, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 2.
Solodovnikov, as modified above, teaches determining the level of complexity.
Solodovnikov, as modified above, does not teach, however Jung teaches
wherein the lowest level of complexity is defined by questions pertaining to general information about the software product, the general information including a) features of the software product, b) installation instructions regarding the software product, and/or c) recommended configuration settings of the software product (Jung in [0034] teaches using configuration data regarding software products within a network domain, and in [0150] teaches servicing a request to troubleshoot an issue in the network with regard to software products).
Jung is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of troubleshooting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Solodovnikov, as modified above, further in view of Jung to allow for troubleshooting an issue. Motivation to do so would allow for a guiding tour which includes guided support that allows the user to follow the most efficient path (faster than another path) for performing an intended task (Jung [0155]).
Regarding claim 13, Solodovnikov, as modified above, teaches the AI assistant of claim 12.
Solodovnikov, as modified above, teaches determining the level of complexity.
Solodovnikov, as modified above, does not teach, however Jung teaches
wherein the question is directed to a software product operating in a network domain (Jung in [0034] teaches using configuration data regarding software products within a network domain, and in [0150] teaches servicing a request to troubleshoot an issue in the network with regard to software products),
and
wherein the lowest level of complexity is defined by questions pertaining to general information about the software product, the general information including a) features of the software product, b) installation instructions regarding the software product, and/or c) recommended configuration settings of the software product (Jung in [0034] teaches using configuration data regarding software products within a network domain, and in [0150] teaches servicing a request to troubleshoot an issue in the network with regard to software products).
Jung is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of troubleshooting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Solodovnikov, as modified above, further in view of Jung to allow for troubleshooting an issue. Motivation to do so would allow for a guiding tour which includes guided support that allows the user to follow the most efficient path (faster than another path) for performing an intended task (Jung [0155]).
Regarding claim 20, Solodovnikov, as modified above, teaches the server of claim 17.
Solodovnikov, as modified above, teaches determining the level of complexity.
Solodovnikov, as modified above, does not teach, however Jung teaches
wherein the server is a domain-based server (Jung in [0069] teaches using network domain SSL service executing on one or more servers),
wherein the question is directed to a software product operating in a network domain (Jung in [0034] teaches using configuration data regarding software products within a network domain, and in [0150] teaches servicing a request to troubleshoot an issue in the network with regard to software products),
and
wherein the lowest level of complexity is defined by questions pertaining to general information about the software product (Jung in [0034] teaches using configuration data regarding software products within a network domain, and in [0150] teaches servicing a request to troubleshoot an issue in the network with regard to software products).
Jung is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of troubleshooting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Solodovnikov, as modified above, further in view of Jung to allow for troubleshooting an issue. Motivation to do so would allow for a guiding tour which includes guided support that allows the user to follow the most efficient path (faster than another path) for performing an intended task (Jung [0155]).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solodovnikov, in view of Soceanu, in view of Reinaltt et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20250326112 A1, as supported by US 63/637,007 filed 4/22/2024), hereinafter Reinaltt.
Regarding claim 5, Solodovnikov, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 4.
Solodovnikov, as modified above, teaches the LLM.
Solodovnikov, as modified above, does not teach, however Reinaltt teaches
further comprising the step of feeding relevant context data from a knowledge base of a domain to the LLM using a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) procedure (Reinaltt in 0029] teaches using a retrieval augmented generation (RAG) model which returns a context data package including semantically related context data to an LLM).
Reinaltt is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of retrieval augmented generation (RAG) models. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Solodovnikov, as modified above, further in view of Reinaltt to allow for using a retrieval augmented generation (RAG) model. Motivation to do so would allow for a reduction in computational overhead and power consumption by processing devices in isolated environments (Reinaltt [0017]).
Regarding claim 14, Solodovnikov, as modified above, teaches the AI assistant of claim 12.
Solodovnikov, as modified above, teaches the LLM.
Solodovnikov further teaches
wherein the divide-and-conquer plan is tailored using a Large Language Model (LLM) (Solodovnikov in [0064] teaches a “divide-and-conquer” strategy for LLMs can effectively allow a standard consumer device to answer complex topic questions with accuracy comparable to the ChatGPT-X model (or other large scale models) trained on trillion-plus parameters, for instance, given a user question with enough ambiguity or terminology in several fields, the text classification model (i.e. the classifier) may pick the highest prediction value for the classification and load the corresponding context-specific LLM to handle the request).
Solodovnikov, as modified above, does not teach, however Reinaltt teaches
wherein the AI assistant is further configured to feed relevant context data from a knowledge base of a domain to the LLM using a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) procedure (Reinaltt in 0029] teaches using a retrieval augmented generation (RAG) model which returns a context data package including semantically related context data to an LLM).
Reinaltt is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of retrieval augmented generation (RAG) models. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Solodovnikov, as modified above, further in view of Reinaltt to allow for using a retrieval augmented generation (RAG) model. Motivation to do so would allow for a reduction in computational overhead and power consumption by processing devices in isolated environments (Reinaltt [0017]).
Claims 6, 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solodovnikov, in view of Soceanu, in view of Krueger (US Patent Pub. No. 20260154297 A1, as supported by US 63/727,630 filed 12/3/2024).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Solodovnikov, as modified above, teaches he method and AI assistant of claims 1 and 12.
Solodovnikov, as modified above, teaches the divide-and-conquer plan.
Solodovnikov, as modified above, does not teach, however Krueger teaches
wherein the divide-and-conquer plan includes one or more flows of frames, the frames configured to invoke tools for performing specific search functions (Krueger in [0042] teaches using a series of steps, where each reasoning step may include a “search” that is responsive to the thought, and each search corresponds to an API call that is used by the LLM engine [here series of steps maps to flows of frames]).
Krueger is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of API calls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Solodovnikov, as modified above, further in view of Krueger to allow for using API calls. Motivation to do so would allow for the AI model to ground its response in real-time information or domain-specific knowledge, instead of relying entirely on its training data (Krueger [0032]).
Regarding claim 7, Solodovnikov, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 6.
Solodovnikov, as modified above, does not teach, however Krueger teaches
wherein invoking the tools involves using one or more Large Language Models (LLMs) for making API calls (Krueger in [0042] teaches using a series of steps, where each reasoning step may include a “search” that is responsive to the thought, and each search corresponds to an API call that is used by the LLM engine).
Krueger is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of API calls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Solodovnikov, as modified above, further in view of Krueger to allow for using API calls. Motivation to do so would allow for the AI model to ground its response in real-time information or domain-specific knowledge, instead of relying entirely on its training data (Krueger [0032]).
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solodovnikov, in view of Soceanu, in view of Krueger, in view of Gao et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20230198866 A1), hereinafter Gao.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Solodovnikov, as modified above, teaches he method and AI assistant of claims 6 and 15.
Solodovnikov, as modified above, teaches determining the level of complexity, the divide-and-conquer plan, and the software product operating in a network domain.
Solodovnikov, as modified above, does not teach, however Gao teaches
wherein, when the complexity of the question is determined to be at a high level, the divide-and-conquer plan further includes generating a troubleshooting playbook for troubleshooting a software product operating in a network domain (Gao in [0123] teaches creating playbooks to troubleshoot problems).
Gao is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of playbooks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Solodovnikov, as modified above, further in view of Gao to allow for creating playbooks. Motivation to do so would allow for know-how and operational procedures from previous incident responses by the network management team may be converted into Executable Runbooks and allows large swaths of contextual data to be pulled, parsed, analyzed, and displayed on the console at the push of a button by an engineer on the team, no matter their experience (Gao [0120]).
Claims 9, 10, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solodovnikov, in view of Soceanu, in view of Ouyang et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20160019564 A1), hereinafter Ouyang.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Solodovnikov, as modified above, teaches he method and server of claims 1 and 17.
Solodovnikov, as modified above, teaches the divide-and-conquer plan, and the software product.
Solodovnikov, as modified above, does not teach, however Ouyang teaches
wherein the divide-and-conquer plan includes obtaining operational parameters of a software product, the operational parameters including one or more of an identity of a user of the software product, a timeframe when the software product is used, a location where the software product is used, and details related to user experience (Ouyang in [0033] teaches obtaining operational parameters, and in [0103] teaches using a mobile identification number, which would identify the user).
Ouyang is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of obtaining operational parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Solodovnikov, as modified above, further in view of Ouyang to allow for obtaining operational parameters. Motivation to do so would allow for an analytics engine which can allow a device quality team to investigate device quality from several aspects, including, but not limited to, device quality, device readiness and device return rate (Ouyang [0048]).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Solodovnikov, as modified above, teaches he method and server of claims 9 and 18.
Solodovnikov, as modified above, does not teach, however Ouyang teaches
wherein obtaining operational parameters includes interacting with the user and reading data from one or more data sources (Ouyang in [0033] teaches obtaining operational parameters, and in [0107] teaches using a user interface which enables a user to interact directly with the information presented on the display, and in [0050] teaches using a primary data source to obtain performance data).
Ouyang is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of obtaining operational parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Solodovnikov, as modified above, further in view of Ouyang to allow for obtaining operational parameters. Motivation to do so would allow for an analytics engine which can allow a device quality team to investigate device quality from several aspects, including, but not limited to, device quality, device readiness and device return rate (Ouyang [0048]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J. MUELLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1875. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm (Eastern).
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, Daniel C. Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
PAUL MUELLER
Examiner
Art Unit 2657
/PAUL J. MUELLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights