DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 1/10/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application of which Claims 1, 15, and 20 are independent and 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s)(IDS) submitted on 5/21/2025, and 8/19/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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 6, and 18 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.
Claims 6, and 18, recites “… the query comprises a chatbot query and the model comprises...”, which appears to be indefinite since it is not clear which model it is referring to.
Applicant is advised to review all claims for any potential antecedent basis issues.
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 – 2, and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter without significantly more. The claims as whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
The independent claims 1, 15 and 20 recites: “ … accessing a triplet comprising a plurality of components including: a query, a document chunk, and a response, the response including content based on: an output generated by a language model in response to the query; extracting a first key-phrase from a first component of the triplet; extracting a second key-phrase from a different component of the triplet; generating a summary of the document chunk; generating a key-phrase similarity score using a key-phrase cross encoder to cross-encode the first key-phrase and the second key-phrase into the key-phrase similarity score; scoring the summary using a summary cross encoder to cross-encode the summary and the response to generate a summary similarity score; generating feedback data for the output based on the key-phrase similarity score and the summary similarity score.
This application describes a way to judge how good for a chatbot or other conversational agent answer is when the answer was generated using supporting documents. It does this by extracting key phrases from the query, the document chunk, and the system response. Along the way it generates a short summary of the given document chunk. The key phrases and the summary the response employing cross-encoder models which produce similarity scores. The scores are used to decide if the response is relevant, accurate or viable.
The aforementioned limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “language model”, “cross encoder” and “processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “language model”, “cross encoder”, and “processor” language, accessing a query, a document chunk, and a response where the response was generated by a language model in response to a query, can be carried out by a human, where a question can be given to a person and a refernce document to answer the question based on. Human can use the document and arrive an answer (response). Next to check the validity of the response, key phrases of the question/query are identified, along with the key phrases of the (i.e.) document. Human agent can take a document and summarize it as well. The key phrases can be compared to arrive at how similar they are. Similarly, the summary and the response can be compared to arrive at summary similarity score as well. Human, can provide a feedback post performing the comparison of the key phrase similarity against summary similarity score.
All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, 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 only recites additional elements - using a “language model”, “cross encoder”, and “processor” to perform all of the above-mentioned steps. The use of a “language model”, “cross encoder”, and “processor” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer device performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The only element mentioned is the usage of a “language model”, “cross encoder”, which due to lack of specificity can be considered as a generic processor. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a processor is merely for the purpose of data gathering and/or insignificant extra-solution activity that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent Claims do not add limitations that could help the Claim as a whole to amount to significantly more than the Abstract idea identified for the Independent Claim:
Similarly, dependent claims 2, 4 - 14, and 16-19 are also not patent eligible as they include additional steps that are directed towards classifying, providing feedback, retrieving the document chunk, generating a plurality of summaries of the plurality of documents, clustering, cluster identification, obtaining semantic similarity, etc. and thus are also directed towards an abstract idea as they can be practically performed in the mind without being integrated into a practical application, or including any additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey et al. (US20260187372A1)(herein " Dubey "), and in further view of Yang et al. (US 20220245340 A1)(herein "Yang"), Alexandrov et al. (US 20120162349 A1)(herein “Alexandrov”), and Chen et al. (US20260100921 A1)(herein “Chen”).
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 20, Dubey teaches [A method, comprising: - claim 1], [A system comprising: at least one device including a hardware processor; the system being configured to perform operations comprising: - claim 15], and [ One or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations comprising: - claim 20] (Dubey, Par. 0008:” … systems, methods, apparatuses, tangible non-transitory computer-readable media, and devices for performing functions described herein.”, and Par. 0006:” … a computing system including one or more processors, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations.”)
accessing a triplet comprising a plurality of components including: a query, a document chunk, and a response, the response including content based on: an output generated by a language model in response to the query; (Dubey, Par. 0025:” … In response to a query for a sequence processing model, the retrieval augmented generation system can access the document retrieval index and retrieve one or more document chunks that are relevant to the query. The system can provide the one or more document chunks and the query as input to the sequence processing model. The sequence processing model can process the one or more document chunks and the query to generate an output [response] that is augmented by the retrieved document chunks.”, and Par. 0036:” … to locate relevant document chunks from the document retrieval index for an input query. The retrieved document chunks can be used to generate a final response by providing the query and the document chunks to a sequence processing model such as an LLM.”)
[Claim 1 only] wherein the method is performed on at least one computing device comprising a processor. (Dubey, Par. 0043:” … The user computing devices can include one or more processor(s), memory, and a display as described in more detail hereinafter.”, and Par. 0181:” Computing device 50 can include one or more processors 51 and a memory 52. Processor(s) 51 can be any suitable processing device …”).
Dubey, does not teach, however, Yang teaches extracting a first key-phrase from a first component of the triplet; Yang, Par. 0069:” According to the embodiment of FIG. 1, the keyword [key phrase] extraction module 1220 may extract ‘MultiStar’ as a keyword from the input inquiry [first component] 100 and may extract ‘Good Lock’ as a keyword from the response message. …”, and Par. 0181:”… the electronic device 1000 extracts an inquiry keyword from the input inquiry and extract a response keyword from the response message (in operation S1170). A method of extracting the inquiry keyword from the input inquiry is the same as operation S1140, … For example, when the input inquiry is “What is the MultiStar function?”, the electronic device 1000 may extract ‘MultiStar’ as the inquiry keyword. Similarly, when the response message is “Are you saying that you are curious about the Good Lock function?”, the electronic device 1000 may extract ‘Good Lock’ as the response keyword.”)
extracting a second key-phrase from a different component of the triplet; (Yang, Par. 0069:” According to the embodiment of FIG. 1, the keyword [key phrase] extraction module 1220 may extract ‘MultiStar’ as a keyword from the input inquiry [first component] 100 and may extract ‘Good Lock’ as a keyword from the response message. …”, and Par. 0181:”… the electronic device 1000 extracts an inquiry keyword from the input inquiry and extract a response keyword from the response message (in operation S1170). A method of extracting the inquiry keyword from the input inquiry is the same as operation S1140, … For example, when the input inquiry is “What is the MultiStar function?”, the electronic device 1000 may extract ‘MultiStar’ as the inquiry keyword. Similarly, when the response message is “Are you saying that you are curious about the Good Lock function?”, the electronic device 1000 may extract ‘Good Lock’ as the response keyword.”)
Yang is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. 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 Dubey further in view of Yang to extract a first key-phrase from a first component of the triplet; extracting a second key-phrase from a different component of the triplet. Motivation to do so would provide accurate information about the input inquiry of the user which improves user satisfaction (Yang, Par. 0074).
Dubey, as modified above, does not teach, however, Alexandrov teaches generating a summary of the document chunk; (Alexandrov, Par. 0102:” … exemplary system 1100 for generating a summary document of an online meeting. … A combining module 1106 generates a summary document summarizing the online meeting by combining the plurality of screenshots. …”).
generating feedback data for the output based on the key-phrase similarity score and the summary similarity score; (Alexandrov, Par. 0102:” … exemplary system 1100 for generating a summary document of an online meeting. … A combining module 1106 generates a summary document summarizing the online meeting by combining the plurality of screenshots. Optionally, the system 1100 may further include a receiver 1110 for receiving an annotation [feedback] from a computing device attending the meeting, and the combining module 1106 may further add the annotation to the summary document.”)
Alexandrov is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. 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 Dubey, as modified above, further in view of Alexandrov to generate a summary of the document chunk; generating feedback data for the output based on the key-phrase similarity score and the summary similarity score. Motivation to do so would display, during an ongoing online meeting, a previously presented portion of the meeting (Alexandrov, par. 0006).
Dubey, as modified above, does not teach, however, Chen teaches generating a key-phrase similarity score using a key-phrase cross encoder to cross-encode the first key-phrase and the second key-phrase into the key-phrase similarity score; (Chen, Par. 0101:” … a cross-encoder may be provided with textual inputs representing the sub-tasks 367 and service descriptions. The cross-encoder compares the two textual inputs [first key-phrase and the second key-phrase] to determine a similarity between them and outputs a score [key-phrase similarity score] or confidence indicating the level of similarity, e.g., a value between 0 and 1.”)
scoring the summary using a summary cross encoder to cross-encode the summary and the response to generate a summary similarity score; (Chen, Par. 0101:” … a cross-encoder may be provided with textual inputs representing the sub-tasks 367 and service descriptions. The cross-encoder compares the two textual inputs [summary and the response] to determine a similarity between them and outputs a score [summary similarity score] or confidence indicating the level of similarity, e.g., a value between 0 and 1.”)
Chen is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. 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 Dubey, as modified above, further in view of Chen to generate a key-phrase similarity score using a key-phrase cross encoder to cross-encode the first key-phrase and the second key-phrase into the key-phrase similarity score; scoring the summary using a summary cross encoder to cross-encode the summary and the response to generate a summary similarity score. Motivation to do so would improve user experience when performing various tasks (Chen, Par. 0018).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-14, and 16-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if written in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, including overcoming 101 eligibility rejection and 112(b) rejection as noted earlier.
Claims 2-14, and 16-19 would be allowable because the prior art alone or in reasonable combination does not teach or suggest the combination of claimed elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Wang et al. (US20260080251A1) teaches in ABS:” … receiving a query and a corresponding response; generating a judgement indicating a preference level of the corresponding response and a critique indicating a reason of the judgement based on an input of the query, the corresponding response and an instruction indicating an evaluation protocol; constructing a preference judgment training sample comprising the query and the corresponding response; training a second neural network based language model using the preference training sample to judge whether a model-generated response to the query aligns with user preference; …”
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIOUSH AGAHI whose telephone number is (408)918-7689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on 571-272-7453. 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.
DARIOUSH AGAHI, P.E.
Primary Examiner
/DARIOUSH AGAHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights