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 .
The Amendment filed on 06/02/26 has been received and entered. Application No. 19/048,125 of which claims 1-21 are pending in the application, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s response, filed on 06/02/26, with respect to 101 rejections directed to non-statutory subject matter of claims 8-14 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s response with respect to 101 rejections directed to an abstract idea of claims 1-21 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
This action is made final in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejections directed to non-statutory subject matter of claims 8-14 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant made the following arguments: “In the present case, the exemplary components of a server given in the specification, including the computers/processors which can access local memory/databases, are all tangible components. Indeed, even beyond the specific exemplary hardware described in the specification a "server" is well understood tangible piece of hardware. As such, this rejection is believed to be improper”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner points that claim 8 recites a system comprising “a server”, however, the original disclosure fails to disclose any structural or hardware component of these units. The original disclosure of paragraph 31 discloses, “The system 400 may include a cloud 401 which may be operatively connected to one or more servers 402, 403. The cloud 401 may be the Internet and/or include various local area networks. Servers 402, 403 may include one or more computers/processors which can access local memory/databases. Alternatively, or in addition to the local memory, a server 402, 403 may have access to any number of databases 404-406 on the cloud 401". Therefore, the server stated above can be a software module that can be executed by a computer. Thus, the system is a software per se and does not contain any structural or hardware component that is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejections of claims 1-21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant made the following arguments:
Regarding claims 1-21, Applicant argues “technology provides an improvement that allows streamlined and intelligent searching of a database to target only relevant data, such that less data can be returned and computer efficiency can be improved”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed limitations identify one or more documents, the documents stored in the digital library, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “method…,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “method…,” “of “identify…,” in the context of these claims encompass the user manually identify documents. 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 – maintaining…, populating…, indexing…, using…, conducting…. The “indexing”, “using”, “conducting” limitations amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The “populating” and “maintaining ” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering, outputting, please see MPEP 2106.05g). 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “Indexing”, “using” and “conducting” amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The additional elements of “populating” and “maintaining ” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (storing or data gathering, outputting, see MPEP 2106.05d). The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims are not patent eligible. Examiner points that improvement cannot be part of the abstract idea itself. See 101 rejections below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 1-21 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In claim 8, a system comprising “a server” is being recited; however, the system comprises a server. The original disclosure fails to disclose any structural or hardware component of these units. The original disclosure of paragraph 31 discloses, “The system 400 may include a cloud 401 which may be operatively connected to one or more servers 402, 403. The cloud 401 may be the Internet and/or include various local area networks. Servers 402, 403 may include one or more computers/processors which can access local memory/databases. Alternatively, or in addition to the local memory, a server 402, 403 may have access to any number of databases 404-406 on the cloud 401". Therefore, the server stated above can be a software module that can be executed by a computer. Thus, the system is a software per se and does not contain any structural or hardware component that is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Dependent claims 9-14 are rejected because of the similar reasons.
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph or 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (Remarks)
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: the system claim 8 recites “a server configured to,” with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). Also, claims 9-14, recite respectively: “server configured to, ” with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. It appears that the original disclosure does not disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function.
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.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims 1, 8, 15 recite identify one or more documents, the documents stored in the digital library.
The limitations of identify…, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “method…,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “method…,” “of “identify…,” in the context of these claims encompass the user manually identify documents. 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 – maintaining…, populating…, indexing…, using…, conducting…. The “indexing”, “using”, “conducting” limitations amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The “populating” and “maintaining ” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering, outputting, please see MPEP 2106.05g). 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “Indexing”, “using” and “conducting” amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The additional elements of “populating” and “maintaining ” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (storing or data gathering, outputting, see MPEP 2106.05d). The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 2, 9, and 16 recite wherein conducting the at least one search is performed intermittently or periodically. The limitations only recite additional elements recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, this additional elements do 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 additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 3, 10, and 17 recites receiving, from a user interface, a user project profile and/or documentation, wherein conducting the at least one search includes constructing a query over the plurality of data sets based on the contextual data associated with the user project profile and/or documentation. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., receiving) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do 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 additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 4, 11, and 18 recite wherein conducting the at least one search includes utilizing contextual data from documents already stored in the digital library to construct a query over the plurality of data sets. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., conducting, utilizing, construct) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do 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 additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 5, 12, and 19 recite receiving relevance indicators from a user interface, wherein conducting the at least one search includes fine tuning a query over the plurality of data sets based on the relevance indicators. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., receiving) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do 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 additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 6, 13, and 20 recite wherein using an embedding model for indexing a plurality of datasets includes creating a single representative index of the documents stored in the digital library. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., using, creating) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do 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 additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 7, 14, and 21 recite utilizing a large language model (LLM) that interacts with a user interface to evaluate information stored within the digital library to ensure that data found by the searches is relevant to the contents of the digital library and/or aid in formation of queries. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., utilizing, evaluate) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do 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 additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pringle (U.S. Pub 2024/0031367) in view of Perkins et al. (U.S. PGPub 2023/0395067; hereinafter “Perkins”) and further in view of Birdwell et al. (U.S. PGPub 2010/0332475; hereinafter “Birdwell”).
As per claims 1, 8, and 15, Pringle discloses a computer-implemented method of establishing and curating data, the method comprising: maintaining a knowledge base in a digital library to support an information-based decision-making process; (See Figs. 3, 4B, 7, paras. 22, 46, wherein knowledge/intelligence hub, knowledge base center, video library in which “knowledge-based services (e.g., search engine, video libraries, AI/ML modeling services, etc.), chat-bot services, curated business corpus knowledge libraries with associated large language models, and others” [0046] are disclosed; as taught by Pringle.)
However, Pringle fails to disclose conducting at least one search over the plurality of data sets to identify one or more documents, the documents stored in the digital library.
On the other hand, Perkins teaches conducting at least one search over the plurality of data sets to identify one or more documents, the documents stored in the digital library. (See Fig. 8A-8B, paras. 119, 247-248, wherein digital assistant knowledge base functionalities, search module features, providing content, such as books, documents in which “application 802 is installed or is in the process of being installed on an electronic device implementing system 800. Software applications such as application 802 provide additional content and functionality to a user of an electronic device. For example, a reader application provides content such as books, audiobooks, or documents, and provides functionality such as opening/presenting media, media playback, purchasing media, or searching media…” [0247] are disclosed; as taught by Perkins.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Perkins teachings in the Pringle system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the system for operating an intelligent automated assistant taught by Perkins in the Pringle system for effective AI-driven integration platform and user-adaptive interface for business relationship orchestration. In addition, both of the references (Pringle and Perkins) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as search customization based on user profiles. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
However, the combination of Pringle and Perkins fails to disclose dynamically populating the knowledge base by: indexing a plurality of data sets using an embedding model, including converting the data sets into a set of floating point numbers which are inserted into a vectored database such that they are searchable with a similarity score.
On the other hand, Birdwell teaches dynamically populating the knowledge base by: indexing a plurality of data sets using an embedding model, including converting the data sets into a set of floating point numbers which are inserted into a vectored database such that they are searchable with a similarity score. (See Fig. 20, paras. 39, 96, 105-107, wherein dynamic indexing process in which “indexing can be based upon metric space methods by embedding objects in a metric space (or associating objects with elements of a metric space) and using an inverse of the metric, such as an additive or multiplicative inverse, evaluated upon a pair of objects, as a measure of the objects' similarity” [0106] are disclosed, also paras. 5, 32-34, 47-48, wherein similarity-based indexing features, similarity scoring are disclosed, also See paras. 134, 210-212, wherein floating-point measurement, data set population are disclosed; as taught by Birdwell.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Birdwell teachings in the combination of Pringle and Perkins system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the system for predicting object properties and events using similarity-based information retrieval and modeling taught by Birdwell in the combination of Pringle and Perkins system for effective AI-driven integration platform and user-adaptive interface for business relationship orchestration. In addition, both of the references (Pringle, Perkins, and Birdwell) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as search customization based on user profiles. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As per claims 2, 9, and 16, the combination of Pringle, Perkins, and Birdwell discloses wherein conducting the at least one search is performed intermittently or periodically. (See Fig. 3, paras. 41, 100, wherein data monitor functions and periodic monitoring, data capturing functions in which “the data monitor 115e may be configured to perform monitoring and data capture functions continually and in real-time, as users of the one or more user devices 120 are interacting with the integration platform 110, and/or periodically, at predetermined times or intervals or in connection with predetermined types of interactions” [0041] are disclosed; as taught by Pringle.)
As per claims 3, 10, and 17, the combination of Pringle, Perkins, and Birdwell discloses receiving, from a user interface, a user project profile and/or documentation, wherein conducting the at least one search includes constructing a query over the plurality of data sets based on the contextual data associated with the user project profile and/or documentation. (See paras. 26, 66-68, wherein user’s interactions and customizing interactions according to user’s tendencies in which “modeling the user's current and/or historical interactions (and/or the interactions of other users having similar user profile characteristics) to develop advanced analytics, using the advanced analytics to predict and/or suggest the user's current and/or future interactions, and then generating or revising the interactive GUI (and other services and resources) in accordance with the predicted and/or suggested user interactions. This type of intelligent integration not only improves the user's experience (e.g., by customizing interactions according to each user's tendencies), but it also improves the interactive GUI..” [0026] are disclosed, also See para. 101, wherein chat-bot functions, resources that provide users with personalized information and customized suggestions in which “chat-bots, this resource provides users with personalized information and customized suggestions designed to interpret the way individual users query its search function, and learn from those experiences” [0101] are disclosed; as taught by Pringle.)
As per claims 4, 11, and 18, the combination of Pringle, Perkins, and Birdwell discloses wherein conducting the at least one search includes utilizing contextual data from documents already stored in the digital library to construct a query over the plurality of data sets. (See paras. 26, 66-68, wherein user’s interactions and customizing interactions according to user’s tendencies in which “each time a user accesses and/or interacts with the integration platform 110, the data monitor 115e may monitor and capture data and information associated with such access and interactions (e.g., interaction data 114b), including in real-time as the access/interactions are occurring ( e.g., the user activity). The interaction data 114b may include, for example, selections, input, requests, queries, responses to prompts, search terms, length and/or frequency of interactions, types services and/or resources invoked, geo-location of device(s) used to access the integration platform 110, type of data downloaded and/or uploaded, and so on...” [0066] are disclosed, also See para. 101, wherein chat-bot functions, resources that provide users with personalized information and customized suggestions in which “chat-bots, this resource provides users with personalized information and customized suggestions designed to interpret the way individual users query its search function, and learn from those experiences” [0101] are disclosed; as taught by Pringle.)
As per claims 5, 12, and 19, the combination of Pringle, Perkins, and Birdwell discloses receiving relevance indicators from a user interface, wherein conducting the at least one search includes fine tuning a query over the plurality of data sets based on the relevance indicators. (See paras. 66-68, wherein user’s interactions and customizing interactions according to user’s tendencies are disclosed, also See para. 101, wherein chat-bot functions, resources that provide users with personalized information and customized suggestions in which “chat-bots, this resource provides users with personalized information and customized suggestions designed to interpret the way individual users query its search function, and learn from those experiences” [0101] are disclosed, also See Fig. 4A, paras. 26, 34, wherein tendency data in which “user's tendencies to utilize such systems, products and/or services together. In some embodiments, the user's tendencies may include language tendencies (e.g., terminology, phrases, format, dialect, etc.) (analogous to indicators) that inform, via machine learning modeling, how to interpret user queries, input and other interactions…using the advanced analytics to predict and/or suggest the user's current and/or future interactions, and then generating or revising the interactive GUI (and other services and resources) (analogous to fine tuning) in accordance with the predicted and/or suggested user interactions” [0026] are disclosed; as taught by Pringle.)
As per claims 6, 13, and 20, the combination of Pringle, Perkins, and Birdwell discloses wherein using an embedding model for indexing a plurality of datasets includes creating a single representative index of the documents stored in the digital library. (See paras. 33, 99, wherein indexed content in which “Knowledgebase/Video Library. The knowledgebase/ video library resource 308 may comprise one or more storage devices, memory and/or data repositories maintained by and/or accessible through the integration platform. This resource 308 enables users (end-users and/or platform-side users) to access a library of knowledge articles, videos, photos, images, documents, and other content. The content may be categorized and indexed in a robust way, enabling users and/or the integration platform to quickly and efficiently find desired content via a search function” [0099] are disclosed; as taught by Pringle.)
As per claims 7, 14, and 21, the combination of Pringle, Perkins, and Birdwell discloses utilizing a large language model (LLM) that interacts with a user interface to evaluate information stored within the digital library to ensure that data found by the searches is relevant to the contents of the digital library and/or aid in formation of queries. (See paras. 46, 101, wherein knowledge-based services, corpus knowledge libraries with associated large language models are disclosed; as taught by Pringle.)
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 LIN LIN M HTAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7293. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 7am-3pm, PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L. L. H./
Examiner, Art Unit 2153
/KAVITA STANLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights