Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
3. This office action is in response to the claims filed 02/21/2025.
4. Claims 1, 19 and 20 are independent claims.
5. The office action is made Non-Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The information disclosure statement (IDSs) submitted on 04/10/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03.
Claim 1 recites the steps or acts…, and thus is a process (a series of steps or acts). A process is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 19 recites a system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The claim is directed to a physical circuit, which is a machine and/or manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon program instruction that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computer system to perform a series of steps. A non-transitory computer-readable medium falls within the “manufacture” category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 recite in part the steps: “providing the input query to a large language model (LLM), for translating the natural language into a structured data source query based on searchable categories associated with the surveillance records stored in the data source”, “transmitting the structured data source query to the data source to perform a search of the data source in accordance with the structured data source query to identify at least one query result”.
“Generating response based on a request” is considered as a mental process, particularly when the claims focus on the abstract concept of collecting, organizing, or manipulating data without specifying a particular, inventive way of doing so.
Therefore, those steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 appear to recite an abstract idea because they cover concepts performed in the human mind as a form of collecting, organizing, or manipulating data. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claims 1, 19 and 20 recite the additional elements of “obtaining an input query, the input query comprising natural language” and receiving the at least one query results” are considered as an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Further Claim 19 recites the additional elements of “a processor; and memory” and claim 20 recites the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a processing unit”. Those elements are recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The recitation of “providing … to a large language model (LLM) and obtaining from the LLM” also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “large language model (LLM)” limits the identified judicial exceptions, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (large language model (LLM)) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Here, the claim recites no details about a particular “providing … to a large language model (LLM) and obtaining from the LLM”. The “providing … to a large language model (LLM) and obtaining from the LLM” is used to generally apply the abstract idea (i.e., translating the natural language into a structured data source query based on searchable categories associated with the surveillance records stored in the data source) without placing any limitation on how the large language model operates to derive the response. In addition, the claim omits any details as to how the large language model solves a technical problem and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract recited idea, which is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” to the recited judicial exception. In addition, the claim confines the use of the recited judicial exception to the technological environment of a “large language model” by generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the recited “large language model”. Therefore, this general “large language model” recitation does not integrate the viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or a technological environment.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements of claim 19 “a processor; and memory” and claim 20 “a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a processing unit”. was found to be mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and the additional elements of obtaining an input query, the input query comprising natural language” and “identify at least one query result; and receiving the at least one query results” were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two.
However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Here, the step of obtaining an input query, the input query comprising natural language” and “ receiving the at least one query results “are mere data gathering and outputting that is recited at a high level of generality, and is well-understood. Therefore, this limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
The dependent claims merely incorporate additional elements that narrow the abstract idea without yielding an improvement to any technical field, the computer itself, or limitations beyond merely linking the idea to a particular technological environment.
Claims 2, (causing a display, via the user interface, of the at least one query result), was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity of outputting/displaying data), Merely requesting, transmitting, receiving, or storing data records has been found to be an abstract idea by the Federal Circuit.
Claim 3 (the searchable categories are metadata categories). Mere instructions to implement the abstract recited idea, which is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” to the recited judicial exception.
Claim 4 (wherein the searchable categories form with corresponding metadata characteristics query couplets). Mere instructions to implement the abstract recited idea, which is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” to the recited judicial exception.
Claim 5 (wherein providing the input query to the LLM comprises providing the input query to the LLM without prior parsing of the input query) was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to implement the abstract recited idea, which is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” to the recited judicial exception.
Claim 6 (generating and transmitting instructions to the LLM for generating an application programming interface (API) call for an API related to a data source to be queried with the structured data source query) Mere instructions to implement the abstract recited idea, which is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” to the recited judicial exception.
Claim 7 (transmitting the at least one query results to the LLM; and generating and transmitting instructions to the LLM to generate a summary of the at least one query result.) Mere instructions to implement the abstract recited idea, which is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” to the recited judicial exception.
Claim 8 (providing a permission level to the LLM, wherein the obtained structured data source query includes information related to the permission level) Mere instructions to implement the abstract recited idea, which is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” to the recited judicial exception.
Claim 9 (transmitting the at least one query result to the LLM; generating and transmitting instructions to the LLM for causing the LLM to analyse the at least one query result; receiving the output of the analysis from the LLM; and providing a response to a user computing device having generated the input query, the response corresponding to the received output) Mere instructions to implement the abstract recited idea, which is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” to the recited judicial exception.
Claim 10 (causing the LLM to analyse the at least one query results further cause the LLM to compare the at least one query result to the input query or the structured data source query to verify if the at least one query result satisfies the input query or the structured data source query) Mere instructions to implement the abstract recited idea, which is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” to the recited judicial exception.
Claim 11 (cause the LLM to interpret the at least one query results to determine if additional search of the data source, or of one or more additional data sources is required) Mere instructions to implement the abstract recited idea, which is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” to the recited judicial exception.
Claim 12 (cause the LLM to interpret the at least one query results to determine if a category of information identified in the input query is not searchable) Mere instructions to implement the abstract recited idea, which is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” to the recited judicial exception.
Claim 13 (cause the LLM to generate as an output a suggestion of an alternative category of information instead of the category of information identified in the input query that is not searchable) was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to implement the abstract recited idea.
Claim 14 (generating and transmitting instructions to the LLM for causing the LLM to analyze the input query to determine if one or more categories of information related to the input query is not searchable; and receiving an output from the LLM regarding if one or categories of information related to the input query is not searchable) was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to implement the abstract recited idea.
Claim 15 (cause the LLM to generate one or more alternative data categories to be searched related to one or more not searchable categories of information of the one or more categories of information; and wherein the received output includes the one or more alternative data categories to be searched related to one or more not searchable categories of information of the one or more categories of information) considered an abstract idea by itself under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they cover concepts performed in the human mind as a form of collecting, organizing, or manipulating data.
Claim 16 (wherein the obtained input query is accompanied by metadata providing context information surrounding the obtained input query) was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to implement the abstract recited idea, which is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” to the recited judicial exception.
Claim 17 (wherein the input query is provided to the LLM along with the metadata providing context information or information derived from the metadata providing context information) was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to implement the abstract recited idea, which is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” to the recited judicial exception.
Claim 18 (generating a system prompt defining instructions on a manner of structuring the structured data prompt for the data source, and providing the system prompt along with the input query to the LLM) was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to implement the abstract recited idea, which is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” to the recited judicial exception.
Examiner Note
9. The Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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.
11. 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;
12. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Lewis et al (US 20250258851 A1) hereinafter as Lewis.
13. Regarding claim 1, Lewis teaches A method for causing a searching of a data source of surveillance records (Abstract, “systems and methods for retrieving telematics data (surveillance records).”), comprising:
Examiner interpretation: Telematics data can be considered a form of surveillance data because it collects detailed information like location, driving patterns, speed, and braking, which can be used to monitor and analyze individual behavior.
In line with Applicant Pre-Grant Pub [0007], [0092], [0108].
[0007], “A surveillance repository may contain any suitable number of surveillance records, including video records, audio records, image records, text records, event records, and the like.”
[0092], “searching a repository of surveillance records, which may include video records, audio records, image records, text records, event records, and the like.”
[0108], “The data source(s) may also be one or more devices for generating surveillance records, such as a camera that generates images or video, a badge reader that generates badge read events, a microphone that generates audio files, etc.”
obtaining an input query, the input query comprising natural language (Fig 4, step 420, [0088], “receive a natural language request from a user, the natural language request comprising at least one textual question relating to the telematics data stored within the at least one telematics database (420)”);
providing the input query to a large language model (LLM), for translating the natural language into a structured data source query (Fig 4, step 430, [0088], “generate, using a large language model (LLM) an executable query”, [0101], “the executable query may be generated in SQL”) based on searchable categories associated with the surveillance records stored in the data source ([0026], “identifying, based on a parsing of the natural language request by the LLM, a portion of the contextual information (searchable/metadata categories) useful for generating the executable query from the at least one context database (the data source), the portion of the contextual information comprising one or more features of the at least one telematics database and one or more example natural language requests and corresponding executable query outputs that are relevant to the natural language request”, [0033], “a type of the portion of the telematics data (searchable categories) that is responsive to the natural language request”, [0055], “Telematics data may include a wide variety of different types of information, parameters, attributes, characteristics, features (searchable categories), and the like relating to various aspects of a vehicle (searchable categories)”, [0066], “the telematics data may include, but is not limited to, location data, speed data, acceleration data, fluid level data (e.g., oil, coolant, and washer fluid), energy data (e.g., battery and/or fuel level), engine data, brake data, transmission data, odometer data, vehicle identifying data, error/diagnostic data, tire pressure data, seatbelt data, airbag data, or a combination thereof.”, [0098], “the textual question may be about a certain type of telematics data”, [0103], “For example, if the user requests a specific type of telematics data obtained from their vehicle fleet (i.e., a portion of the total telematics data included in the databases), the executable query may retrieve that type of telematics data from the relevant database.”, [0126], [0136], “the executable query may be modified based on database identifying information, a type of the portion of the telematics data that is responsive to the natural language request”);
obtaining, from the LLM, a structured data source query based on the input query ([0024], “the portion of the contextual information comprising one or more features of the at least one telematics database and one or more example natural language requests and corresponding executable query (a structured data source query) outputs that are relevant to the natural language request; and inputting the portion of contextual information into the LLM; execute the executable query (a structured data source query) for retrieving the portion of the telematics data from the at least one telematics database (the data source); and return at least the portion of the telematics data to the user”, Fig 4, step 430, [0088], “generate, using a large language model (LLM) an executable query”);
transmitting the structured data source query to the data source to perform a search of the data source in accordance with the structured data source query to identify at least one query result (Fig 4, step 440, [0088], “execute the executable query for retrieving the portion of the telematics data from the at least one telematics database (440)”); and
receiving the at least one query results (Fig 4, step 450, [0088], “return at least the portion of the telematics data to the user”).
14. Regarding claim 2, Lewis teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches causing a display, via the user interface, of the at least one query result (Fig 4, step 450, [0088], “return at least the portion of the telematics data to the user”, Fig 3, [0087], “The display 158 may display various visual representations of the telematics data.”).
15. Regarding claim 3, Lewis teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the searchable categories are metadata categories ( ([0026], “identifying, based on a parsing of the natural language request by the LLM, a portion of the contextual information (searchable/metadata categories) useful for generating the executable query from the at least one context database (the data source), the portion of the contextual information comprising one or more features of the at least one telematics database and one or more example natural language requests and corresponding executable query outputs that are relevant to the natural language request”, [0033], “a type of the portion of the telematics data (searchable categories) that is responsive to the natural language request”, [0055], “Telematics data may include a wide variety of different types of information, parameters, attributes, characteristics, features (searchable categories), and the like relating to various aspects of a vehicle (searchable categories)”, [0066], “the telematics data may include, but is not limited to, location data, speed data, acceleration data, fluid level data (e.g., oil, coolant, and washer fluid), energy data (e.g., battery and/or fuel level), engine data, brake data, transmission data, odometer data, vehicle identifying data, error/diagnostic data, tire pressure data, seatbelt data, airbag data, or a combination thereof.”, [0098], “the textual question may be about a certain type of telematics data”, [0103], “For example, if the user requests a specific type of telematics data obtained from their vehicle fleet (i.e., a portion of the total telematics data included in the databases), the executable query may retrieve that type of telematics data from the relevant database.”, [0126], [0136], “the executable query may be modified based on database identifying information, a type of the portion of the telematics data that is responsive to the natural language request”).
16. Regarding claim 5, Lewis teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein providing the input query to the LLM comprises providing the input query to the LLM without prior parsing of the input query ([0056], “such reports may include a significant amount of information and, as a result, may be time-consuming to review and difficult to parse and/or process if a user is inexperienced.” [0058], “such embodiments may reduce the amount of time spent parsing telematics data collected from a vehicle fleet by a user, as only specific, requested telematics data (or analyses thereof) may be returned.”, [0088], “identifying, based on a parsing of the natural language request by the LLM, a portion of the contextual information useful for generating the executable query from the at least one context database”, [0121], “the machine learning model (e.g., an LLM) may “parse” the natural language request when input thereinto to identify the meaning, or intent, thereof.”, [0122], “By parsing the natural language request, the machine learning model may determine information required to generate the executable query.”. Examiner interpretation: therefore, the input query is provided to the LLM that parse the natural language request to generate the executable query without prior parsing of the input query).
17. Regarding claim 7, Lewis teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches transmitting the at least one query results to the LLM; and generating and transmitting instructions to the LLM to generate a summary of the at least one query result (Fig 4, [0067], “Once received, the fleet management system 110 may process the telematics data obtained from the telematics devices 130 to provide various analysis, predictions, reporting, etc.”).
18. Regarding claim 8, Lewis teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches providing a permission level to the LLM, wherein the obtained structured data source query includes information related to the permission level ([0102], “it may in some cases be necessary to insert into the executable query after the generation thereof, certain database identifying information so that the executable query, when executed, may access and retrieve the information stored in the databases. Examples of such database identifying information include, database names, user IDs associated with particular databases, etc.”, [0119], [0134], [0148]).
19. Regarding claim 14, Lewis teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches generating and transmitting instructions to the LLM for causing the LLM to analyze the input query to determine if one or more categories of information related to the input query is not searchable; and receiving an output from the LLM regarding if one or categories of information related to the input query is not searchable ([0141], “by inputting the error message, additional context may be provided to the machine learning model (a suggestion of an alternative category of information). For example, the machine learning model, may use the error message to adjust or “correct” the executable query based on the textual description of why the telematics data was not retrieved (not searchable) included therein so as to generate a corrected executable query that is capable of retrieving the portion of the telematics data that is responsive to the natural language request from the at least one telematics database.”, [0147], “the executable query (or the corrected executable query, as the case may be) may be returned to the user to provide additional information to the user about how the telematics data was retrieved.”).
20. Regarding claim 15, Lewis teaches the invention as claimed in claim 14 above and further teaches wherein the instructions to the LLM for causing the LLM to analyze the input query to determine if one or more categories of information related to the input query is not searchable, are to further cause the LLM to generate one or more alternative data categories to be searched related to one or more not searchable categories of information of the one or more categories of information; and wherein the received output includes the one or more alternative data categories to be searched related to one or more not searchable categories of information of the one or more categories of information ([0141], “by inputting the error message, additional context may be provided to the machine learning model (a suggestion of an alternative category of information). For example, the machine learning model, may use the error message to adjust or “correct” the executable query based on the textual description of why the telematics data was not retrieved (not searchable) included therein so as to generate a corrected executable query that is capable of retrieving the portion of the telematics data that is responsive to the natural language request from the at least one telematics database.”, [0147], “the executable query (or the corrected executable query, as the case may be) may be returned to the user to provide additional information to the user about how the telematics data was retrieved.”).
21. Regarding claim 16, Lewis teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the obtained input query is accompanied by metadata providing context information surrounding the obtained input query ([0026-0029], [0088], “inputting the natural language request into the LLM; identifying, based on a parsing of the natural language request by the LLM, a portion of the contextual information useful for generating the executable query from the at least one context database…inputting the portion of contextual information into the LLM (430)”).
22. Regarding claim 17, Lewis teaches the invention as claimed in claim 16 above and further teaches wherein the input query is provided to the LLM along with the metadata providing context information or information derived from the metadata providing context information ([0026-0029], [0088], “inputting the natural language request into the LLM; identifying, based on a parsing of the natural language request by the LLM, a portion of the contextual information useful for generating the executable query from the at least one context database…inputting the portion of contextual information into the LLM (430)”).
23. Regarding claim 18, Lewis teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches generating a system prompt defining instructions on a manner of structuring the structured data prompt for the data source, and providing the system prompt along with the input query to the LLM ([0105], “The machine learning model may be a model that is capable of converting natural language into computer programming language…such transformer models are often used for processing (or “transforming”) natural language prompts.”, [0107], “The input layer 510 generally prepares an input for processing by the transformer model 500. The input may be a textual input (e.g., the natural language request) and may sometimes be referred to as a “prompt”. The input layer 510 may comprise an input embeddings sublayer 512 and a positional encoding sublayer 514”, [0145], “the user may be prompted to input an updated natural language request comprising, for example, a modified or different textual question relating to the telematics data stored on the database so that the methods and systems of the present disclosure may re-attempt to retrieve the desired telematics data.”).
24. Regarding claim 19, this claim recites a system performs the method of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
25. Regarding claim 20, this claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon program instructions performs the method of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
26. 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.
27. 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) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
28. Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al (US 20250258851 A1) hereinafter as Lewis in view of Ying-li Tian, hereinafter as Ying.
Ying-li Tian was cited in the IDS received 04/10/2025 (IDS. NPL Row 6)
Examiner interpretation: The term "couplets" is not a standard SQL keyword or operator. It is likely the user is referring to tuples (pairs of values), key-value pairs, or filtering based on multiple column criteria.
In line with Applicant Pre-Grant Pub [0130], “For instance, the one or more searchable categories may be metadata tags or categories, where corresponding values for each of the metadata tags or categories may be related, as couplets, to the metadata tags or categories. For instance, exemplary metadata tags may be {time}, {date}, {location}, {object_type}, etc.”
29. Regarding claim 4, Lewis teaches the invention as claimed in claim 3 above, Lewis further implicitly teaches wherein the searchable categories form with corresponding metadata characteristics query ([0066], “The telematics data may include any information, parameters, attributes, characteristics, and/or features associated with the vehicles 120”, [0098], search by metadata tag”).
However, Ying explicitly teaches wherein the searchable categories form with corresponding metadata characteristics query couplets (page 23, compound search (query with key-value pairs)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in Ying’s system into Lewis’s and by incorporating Ying into Lewis because both systems are related to Video analysis and retrieval would enable large scale searching of surveillance video (page 3, Ying).
30. Claims 6 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al (US 20250258851 A1) hereinafter as Lewis in view of Dotan-Cohen et al (US 20250225008 A1) hereinafter as Dotan.
31. Regarding claim 6, Lewis teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, Lewis did not teach generating and transmitting instructions to the LLM for generating an application programming interface (API) call for an API related to a data source to be queried with the structured data source query.
However, Dotan explicitly teaches generating and transmitting instructions to the LLM for generating an application programming interface (API) call for an API related to a data source to be queried with the structured data source query ([0008-0010], [0031-0032], [0037-0038], [0051], [0073-0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in Dotan’s system into Lewis’s and by incorporating Dotan into Lewis because both systems are related to Video analysis and retrieval would cause an LLM to intelligently process data based on a user query and a schema determined for a data set.
32. Regarding claim 9, Lewis teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, Lewis did not teach the limitation of claim 9.
However, Dotan explicitly teaches transmitting the at least one query result to the LLM (Fig 6, step 606); generating and transmitting instructions to the LLM for causing the LLM to analyse the at least one query result (Fig 6, step 608); receiving the output of the analysis from the LLM (Fig 6, step 610); and providing a response to a user computing device having generated the input query, the response corresponding to the received output (Fig 6, step 612).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in Dotan’s system into Lewis’s and by incorporating Dotan into Lewis because both systems are related to Video analysis and retrieval would cause an LLM to intelligently process data based on a user query and a schema determined for a data set.
33. Regarding claim 10, Lewis teaches the invention as claimed in claim 9 above, Lewis further teaches wherein the instructions for causing the LLM to analyse the at least one query results further cause the LLM to compare the at least one query result to the input query or the structured data source query to verify if the at least one query result satisfies the input query or the structured data source query ([0141]) and Dotan also teaches the limitation at ([0064], [0068]).
34. Regarding claim 11, Lewis teaches the invention as claimed in claim 10 above, Lewis further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the LLM to interpret the at least one query results to determine if additional search of the data source, or of one or more additional data sources is required ([0012], “identify additional contextual information based on one or more previous natural language requests received from the user.”, [0096], “the contextual information may include a plurality of example natural language requests and corresponding executable query outputs that may exemplify to a machine learning model how to generate an executable query for accessing the at least one telematics database. Additional types of contextual information that may be stored in the at least one context database will be discussed herein.”, [0141], “by inputting the error message, additional context may be provided to the machine learning model. For example, the machine learning model, may use the error message to adjust or “correct” the executable query based on the textual description of why the telematics data was not retrieved included therein so as to generate a corrected executable query that is capable of retrieving the portion of the telematics data that is responsive to the natural language request from the at least one telematics database.”, [0147], “the executable query (or the corrected executable query, as the case may be) may be returned to the user to provide additional information to the user about how the telematics data was retrieved.”).
35. Regarding claim 12, Lewis teaches the invention as claimed in claim 10 above, Lewis further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the LLM to interpret the at least one query results to determine if a category of information identified in the input query is not searchable ([0141], “by inputting the error message, additional context may be provided to the machine learning model. For example, the machine learning model, may use the error message to adjust or “correct” the executable query based on the textual description of why the telematics data was not retrieved (not searchable) included therein so as to generate a corrected executable query that is capable of retrieving the portion of the telematics data that is responsive to the natural language request from the at least one telematics database.”).
36. Regarding claim 13, Lewis teaches the invention as claimed in claim 12 above, Lewis further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the LLM to generate as an output a suggestion of an alternative category of information instead of the category of information identified in the input query that is not searchable ([0141], “by inputting the error message, additional context may be provided to the machine learning model (a suggestion of an alternative category of information). For example, the machine learning model, may use the error message to adjust or “correct” the executable query based on the textual description of why the telematics data was not retrieved (not searchable) included therein so as to generate a corrected executable query that is capable of retrieving the portion of the telematics data that is responsive to the natural language request from the at least one telematics database.”, [0147], “the executable query (or the corrected executable query, as the case may be) may be returned to the user to provide additional information to the user about how the telematics data was retrieved.”).
CONCLUSION
37. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant s disclosure.
Brende et al (US 20240394251 A1) discloses facilitating database queries.
Kallman et al (US 11809508 B1) discloses artificial intelligence geospacial search.
De Datta et al (US 20140207750 A1) discloses Query generation for searchable content.
Bulut et al (US 20240427879 A1) discloses improving the speed, quality, and relevance of automated responses provided by a question answering system for security data.
Cilloni et al (US 20250174012 A1) discloses image analysis using embeddings.
Madisett et al (US 20250173363 A1) discloses multi-level artificial intelligence supercomputer design.
Belz et al (US 8516514 B2) discloses monitoring a person in a residence.
Pendar et al (US 12248467 B1) discloses perform artificial intelligence-powered search and evaluation functionalities.
Kirk et al (US 20250124024 A1) discloses generating content source.
Majkowska et al (US 11782970 B2) discloses query categorization based on image results.
Sabhanatarajan et al (US 11960545 B1) discloses performing searches of event records by leveraging reference values in an inverted index.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HICHAM SKHOUN whose telephone number is (571)272-9466. The examiner can normally be reached Normal schedule: Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at 5712701698. 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.
/HICHAM SKHOUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164