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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 5 element “Transmission 502” should read “Transmission 504” and Fig. 6 “LLM with knowledge infusion 608” is referenced as “LLM with knowledge diffusion 608” multiple times in the Specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: elements 740A, 740B, and 740C from para [0058]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 6-7, 9-12, 16-17, and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Using the subject matter eligibility test from page 74621 of the Federal Register Notice titled “2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility,” a two-step process is performed. Under step 1, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claim is directed to a process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. In this case, claims 1-10 are directed to a method, which is a process, while claims 11-20 are directed to a system, which is a machine or an article of manufacture. Step 2A (part 1 of the Mayo test), using the guidance from pages 50-57 of the Federal Register Vol. 84 No. 4 from Monday, January 7, 2019, requires applying a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, determining if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea. In this case, claim 1 recites determining relevance, adding outputs, and performing an action, which are mental processes or mathematical calculations. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. In this case, additional elements of processor and memory are generic computing components, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B (part 2 of the Mayo test) requires analyzing the claims to determine if they recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, determining relevance, adding outputs, and performing an action are mental processes or mathematical calculations, which are abstract ideas. For example, a human could determine relevance of a query, and perform an action, while the adding of output layers is a mathematical calculation. Additional elements of processor and memory are generic computing components, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more.
Regarding claims 2, 7, 10, 12, 17, and 20, the limitations are further clarifications of the above abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, adding outputs is a mathematical calculation, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, performing a treatment action includes mental processes, such as explaining a condition or prescribing a medicine, which are abstract ideas without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
The limitations of the claims, taken alone, do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Applicable case law cited in the Federal Register includes, but is not limited to: Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355-56, Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Benson, 409 U.S. at 63.
See "Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.," dated June 25, 2014, and the Federal Register notice titled "2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility" (79 FR 74618).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 10-11, 16-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Emelin et al. (Emelin, D., Bonadiman, D., Alqahtani, S., Zhang, Y., & Mansour, S. (2022, December). Injecting domain knowledge in language models for task-oriented dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the 2022 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 11962-11974).), hereinafter referred to as Emelin.
Regarding claim 1, Emelin teaches:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
determining that a query is relevant to information that is unknown to a pre-trained language model (page 11962 col. 2, where domain specific categories of knowledge must be accessed to respond to a user query);
adding outputs from adapter layers to outputs of respective transformer layers of the language model to infuse the language model with the information, such that the language model generates a response to the query that accounts for the information that is unknown to the pre-trained language model (Fig. 1, page 11963 col. 1 2nd paragraph, where outputs from the PLM or transformer layer are fused with outputs from the adapter layers to integrate domain specific knowledge, and page 11965 section 2.4, where more accurate predictions on downstream tasks is performed); and
performing an action based on the response (page 11966 sec. 3.1, where the system response is perturbed to create a "distractor" response).
Regarding claim 6, Emelin teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein each adapter layer receives information from a respective transformer layer and adds its output to the output of the respective transformer layer (Fig. 1, page 11963 col. 1 2nd paragraph, where outputs from the PLM or transformer layer are input to the adapter layer for fusion).
Regarding claim 7, Emelin teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein parameters of the adapter layers encode the information (page 11965 section 2.3, where the adapter parameters are updated to encode the information).
Regarding claim 10, Emelin teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the information includes domain-specific information that was not used during training of the pre-trained language model (page 11962 2nd column, page 11963 col. 1 2nd paragraph, where domain specific knowledge is stored in the adapters).
Regarding claim 11, Emelin teaches:
A system, comprising:
a hardware processor (Fig. 3-4, where a system to perform the tasks would necessarily require a processor and memory); and
a memory that stores a computer program (Fig. 3-4, where a system to perform the tasks would necessarily require a processor and memory) which, when executed by the hardware processor, causes the hardware processor to:
determine that a query is relevant to information that is unknown to a pre- trained language model (page 11962 col. 2, where domain specific categories of knowledge must be accessed to respond to a user query);
add outputs from adapter layers to outputs of respective transformer layers of the language model to infuse the language model with the information, such that the language model generates a response to the query that accounts for the information that is unknown to the pre-trained language model (Fig. 1, page 11963 col. 1 2nd paragraph, where outputs from the PLM or transformer layer are fused with outputs from the adapter layers to integrate domain specific knowledge, and page 11965 section 2.4, where more accurate predictions on downstream tasks is performed); and
perform an action based on the response (page 11966 sec. 3.1, where the system response is perturbed to create a "distractor" response).
Regarding claim 16, Emelin teaches:
The system of claim 11, wherein each adapter layer receives information from a respective transformer layer and adds its output to the output of the respective transformer layer (Fig. 1, page 11963 col. 1 2nd paragraph, where outputs from the PLM or transformer layer are input to the adapter layer for fusion).
Regarding claim 17, Emelin teaches:
The system of claim 11, wherein parameters of the adapter layers encode the information (page 11965 section 2.3, where the adapter parameters are updated to encode the information).
Regarding claim 20, Emelin teaches:
The system of claim 11, wherein the information includes domain-specific information that was not used during training of the pre-trained language model (page 11962 2nd column, page 11963 col. 1 2nd paragraph, where domain specific knowledge is stored in the adapters).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emelin, in view of Weber (US 12,354,002 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Emelin teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Emelin does not teach:
wherein determining that the query is relevant uses a router neural network and wherein adding the outputs is performed by the router neural network.
Weber teaches:
wherein determining that the query is relevant uses a router neural network and wherein adding the outputs is performed by the router neural network (col. 2 line 62 - col. 3 line 12, where a router determines which adapter to use, interpreted as relevance, and where the adapter transforms the input data, and col. 7 lines 11-21, where the router is a neural network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Emelin by using the router of Weber (Weber col. 2 line 62 - col. 3 line 12) for the relevance determination of Emelin (Emelin page 11962 col. 2), in order to determine which adapter from a group to use based on the input information (Weber col. 2 line 62 - col. 3 line 12).
Regarding claim 3, Emelin in view of Weber teaches:
The method of claim 2, further comprising training the router and the adapter layers using a knowledge graph that includes the information (Weber col. 3 lines 13-17, where the routers and adapters are trained, and Emelin page 11970 section 7 first paragraph, where knowledge bases include triples).
Regarding claim 12, Emelin teaches:
The system of claim 11,
Emelin does not teach:
wherein the computer program causes the hardware processor to a router neural network to determine that the query is relevant and wherein addition of the outputs is performed by the router neural network.
Weber teaches:
wherein the computer program causes the hardware processor to a router neural network to determine that the query is relevant and wherein addition of the outputs is performed by the router neural network (col. 2 line 62 - col. 3 line 12, where a router determines which adapter to use, interpreted as relevance, and where the adapter transforms the input data, and col. 7 lines 11-21, where the router is a neural network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Emelin by using the router of Weber (Weber col. 2 line 62 - col. 3 line 12) for the relevance determination of Emelin (Emelin page 11962 col. 2), in order to determine which adapter from a group to use based on the input information (Weber col. 2 line 62 - col. 3 line 12).
Regarding claim 13, Emelin in view of Weber teaches:
The system of claim 12, wherein the computer program further causes the hardware processor to train the router and the adapter layers using a knowledge graph that includes the information (Weber col. 3 lines 13-17, where the routers and adapters are trained, and Emelin page 11970 section 7 first paragraph, where knowledge bases include triples).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emelin, in view of Weber, and further in view of Seyler et al. (Seyler, D., Yahya, M., & Berberich, K. (2017, October). Knowledge questions from knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR international conference on theory of information retrieval (pp. 11-18).), hereinafter referred to as Seyler.
Regarding claim 5, Emelin in view of Weber teaches:
The method of claim 3,
Emelin in view of Weber does not teach:
wherein training the router includes generating questions and knowledge statements relating to the information.
Seyler teaches:
wherein training the router includes generating questions and knowledge statements relating to the information (Sections 3, 3.1, where queries and answers are generated from the knowledge graphs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Emelin in view of Weber by using the query and answer generation of Seyler (Seyler sections 3, 3.1) on the knowledge base of Emelin in view of Weber (Emelin page 11970 section 7 first paragraph), in order to automatically generate knowledge questions for education and evaluation (Seyler section 1 "Applications").
Regarding claim 15, Emelin in view of Weber teaches:
The system of claim 13,
Emelin in view of Weber does not teach:
wherein the training of the router includes generating questions and knowledge statements relating to the information.
Seyler teaches:
wherein the training of the router includes generating questions and knowledge statements relating to the information (Sections 3, 3.1, where queries and answers are generated from the knowledge graphs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Emelin in view of Weber by using the query and answer generation of Seyler (Seyler sections 3, 3.1) on the knowledge base of Emelin in view of Weber (Emelin page 11970 section 7 first paragraph), in order to automatically generate knowledge questions for education and evaluation (Seyler section 1 "Applications").
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emelin, in view of Halilaj et al. (US 2025/0242491 A1), hereinafter referred to as Halilaj.
Regarding claim 8, Emelin teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Emelin does not teach:
wherein the action includes performing an action in an automated driving system, selected from the group consisting of a braking action, a steering action, and an acceleration action.
Halilaj teaches:
wherein the action includes performing an action in an automated driving system, selected from the group consisting of a braking action, a steering action, and an acceleration action (para [0045], where steering or braking actions are determined by control software).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Emelin by performing the vehicle control of Halilaj (Halilaj para [0045]) using the knowledge base of Emelin (Emelin page 11970 section 7 first paragraph), in order to control a robot device using a behavior tree (Halilaj para [0045]).
Regarding claim 18, Emelin teaches:
The system of claim 11,
Emelin does not teach:
wherein the action includes an action in an automated driving system, selected from the group consisting of a braking action, a steering action, and an acceleration action.
Halilaj teaches:
wherein the action includes an action in an automated driving system, selected from the group consisting of a braking action, a steering action, and an acceleration action (para [0045], where steering or braking actions are determined by control software).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Emelin by performing the vehicle control of Halilaj (Halilaj para [0045]) using the knowledge base of Emelin (Emelin page 11970 section 7 first paragraph), in order to control a robot device using a behavior tree (Halilaj para [0045]).
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emelin, in view of Sanz et al. (US 12,008,026 B1), hereinafter referred to as Sanz.
Regarding claim 9, Emelin teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Emelin does not teach:
wherein the action includes performing a treatment action responsive to the query being based on a patient's medical condition.
Sanz teaches:
wherein the action includes performing a treatment action responsive to the query being based on a patient's medical condition (col. 4 lines 25-58, where treatment for a medical condition is determined and performed as a maintenance action).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Emelin in view of Weber by performing the maintenance action of Sanz (Sanz col. 4 lines 25-58) using the knowledge base of Emelin in view of Weber (Emelin page 11970 section 7 first paragraph), in order to reduce the likelihood of a certain medical symptom or condition from arising (Sanz col. 4 lines 25-58).
Regarding claim 19, Emelin teaches:
The system of claim 11,
Emelin does not teach:
wherein the action includes a treatment action responsive to the query being based on a patient's medical condition.
Sanz teaches:
wherein the action includes a treatment action responsive to the query being based on a patient's medical condition (col. 4 lines 25-58, where treatment for a medical condition is determined and performed as a maintenance action).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Emelin in view of Weber by performing the maintenance action of Sanz (Sanz col. 4 lines 25-58) using the knowledge base of Emelin in view of Weber (Emelin page 11970 section 7 first paragraph), in order to reduce the likelihood of a certain medical symptom or condition from arising (Sanz col. 4 lines 25-58).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of Emelin, Weber, Seyler, Halilaj, and Sanz does not teach the limitations of the claims. Specifically, none of the cited prior art teaches the specific formula for minimizing a loss function. While Weber teaches in col. 9 lines 19-53 the use of loss functions for training routers and adapters, Weber does not teach the specific equation claimed, in combination with the other limitations. Hence, none of the cited prior art, either alone or in combination thereof, teaches the combination of limitations found in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2025/0209100 A1 para [0148-150] teaches inserting adapter layers into transformer layers of a pretrained language model.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN S BLANKENAGEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0685. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at 571-272-7602. 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.
/BRYAN S BLANKENAGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights