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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A method for managing operation of a distributed system, the method comprising: based on a determination that a management system of the distributed system lacks sufficient information regarding edge devices of the distributed system to service a prompt submitted for processing by a first generative trained machine learning model hosted by the management system: obtaining, by the management system and from at least a portion of the edge devices, context information for the prompt; performing, by the management system, retrieval augmented generation (RAG) processing for the prompt using the context information to obtain an initial response; making a determination regarding whether a subscription is serviceable using at least a portion of the context information; and in a first instance of the determination where the subscription is serviceable: obtaining a subscription response using, at least, a textual description from the subscription and at least a portion of the context information; and providing the subscription response to at least one of the edge devices that is indicated as a recipient by the subscription to facilitate provisioning of computer implemented services by the at least one of the edge devices”.
The limitations of “A method for managing operation of one of
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a distributed system”, “a management system”, “edge devices” and “computer implemented” to perform the claimed steps. The “distributed system”, “management system”, “edge devices” and “computer implemented” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a distributed system”, “a management system”, “edge devices” and “computer implemented” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “obtaining, by the management system and from at least a portion of information” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also recites the additional element of “by a first generative trained machine learning model”, “retrieval augmented generation (RAG) processing” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
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 of using “a distributed system”, “a management system”, “edge devices” and “computer implemented” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “obtaining, by the management system and from at least a portion of that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also recites the additional element of “by a first generative trained machine learning model”, “retrieval augmented generation (RAG) processing” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 2, wherein the context information comprises portions of derived information that is based on the different portions of the information, the derived information being different from the different portions of the information”. 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the context information for the prompt comprises: providing, by
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 4, wherein the subscription package further comprises: at least one example chunk of information deemed by the one of
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 5, wherein obtaining the subscription response comprises: ranking, with respect to similarity to the subscription text, portions of the context information and the at least one example chunk to obtained ranked portions of second context information; filtering the ranked portions of the second context information based on at least one location of the at least one example chunk in the ranked portions of the second context information to obtain filtered second context information; and performing, by "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 6, wherein the subscription text is use as an ingest prompt during MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional element of “the second RAG processing” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 4, wherein obtaining the context information for the prompt further comprises: providing, by a practical application. The claim also recites the additional elements of “obtaining, by
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing operation of a distributed system, the operations comprising: based on a determination that a management system of the distributed system lacks sufficient information regarding edge devices of the distributed system to service a prompt submitted for processing by a first generative trained machine learning model hosted by the management system: obtaining, by the management system and from at least a portion of the edge devices, context information for the prompt; performing, by the management system, retrieval augmented generation (RAG) processing for the prompt using the context information to obtain an initial response; making a determination regarding whether a subscription is serviceable using at least a portion of the context information; and in a first instance of the determination where the subscription is serviceable: obtaining a subscription response using, at least, a textual description from the subscription and at least a portion of the context information; and providing the subscription response to at least one of the edge devices that is indicated as a recipient by the subscription to facilitate provisioning of computer implemented services by the at least one of the edge devices”.
The limitations of “based on a determination that abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a non-transitory machine-readable medium”, “a processor”, “a distributed system”, “a management system”, “edge devices” and “computer implemented” to perform the claimed steps. The “non-transitory machine-readable medium”, “processor”, “distributed system”, “management system”, “edge devices” and “computer implemented” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a non-transitory machine-readable medium”, “a processor”, “a distributed system”, “a management system”, “edge devices” and “computer implemented” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “obtaining, by 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
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 of using “a non-transitory machine-readable medium”, “a processor”, “a distributed system”, “a management system”, “edge devices” and “computer implemented” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “obtaining, by provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “subscription be established” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, any 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional elements of “obtaining, by
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “comprises: at least one example chunk of information deemed by the one of
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “second context information; filtering the ranked portions of the second context information based on at least one location of the at least one example chunk in the ranked portions of the second context information to obtain filtered second context information; and performing, by computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional element of “the second RAG processing” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “of “obtaining, by
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A system, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause operations for managing operation of a distributed system to be performed, the operations comprising: based on a determination that a management system of the distributed system lacks sufficient information regarding edge devices of the distributed system to service a prompt submitted for processing by a first generative trained machine learning model hosted by the management system: obtaining, by the management system and from at least a portion of the edge devices, context information for the prompt; performing, by the management system, retrieval augmented generation (RAG) processing for the prompt using the context information to obtain an initial response; making a determination regarding whether a subscription is serviceable using at least a portion of the context information; and in a first instance of the determination where the subscription is serviceable: obtaining a subscription response using, at least, a textual description from the subscription and at least a portion of the context information; and providing the subscription response to at least one of the edge devices that is indicated as a recipient by the subscription to facilitate provisioning of computer implemented services by the at least one of the edge devices”.
The limitations of “Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a system, comprising: a processor; and a memory”, “a distributed system”, “a management system”, “edge devices” and “computer implemented” to perform the claimed steps. The “system, comprising: a processor; and a memory”, “distributed system”, “management system”, “edge devices” and “computer implemented” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a system, comprising: a processor; and a memory”, “a distributed system”, “a management system”, “edge devices” and “computer implemented” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “obtaining, by 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
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 of using “a system, comprising: a processor; and a memory”, “a distributed system”, “a management system”, “edge devices” and “computer implemented” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “obtaining, by concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, any 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional elements of “obtaining, by
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “information desired by the one of
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “at least one example chunk in the ranked portions of the second context information to obtain filtered second context information; and performing, by the management system, provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The claim also recites the additional element of “second RAG processing” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “and as a response to the second prompt, a second portion of the context information, the second portion indicating that the second one of
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art but still have outstanding 35 USC 101 rejections (see above) that must be resolved.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Step 2A, prong two considers both analysis for integration of the alleged judicial exception into a practical application and analysis of ‘improvements to technology or computer functionality’” and that the specification at paragraphs [0109] & [0190]-[0216] discloses the improvement that “the computational overhead for data collection, processing, and storage may be avoided” and that “[t]hus, the disclosed system may reduce computational overhead for managing operation of the system” (see applicant arguments, pages 10-12). However, integration into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two, requires identifying whether a claim recites any additional elements beyond the judicial exception, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). The rejections of record identify additional elements in the claims, but the applicant did not discuss how they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as required under Step 2A, Prong Two. While the applicant does discuss the consideration of an improvement to technology or computer functionality under MPEP 2106.04(d), this is only a portion of the requirements. The applicant makes no mention of the additional elements nor how they integrate the judicial exception into some practical application in their arguments. In addition, while the applicant argues that “the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification” (see applicant arguments, pages 10-11) it is noted that the recited improvement is not necessarily a realized improvement, i.e. the “computational overhead” is not necessarily “avoided” or “reduced” as a result of the claim steps being performed and would not be applicable as a consideration under Step 2A, Prong Two. For these reasons the arguments are not convincing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Jay A Morrison/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights