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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 21, 34, 39, and 40 have been amended. Claims 1-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-40 are pending and rejected in the application. This action is Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Argues
The Patent Office characterizes the claims as being directed to an abstract idea that can be performed "in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components." Office Action, pg. 4. However, as amended, claim 21 is directed to a specific, technology-based solution for generating database queries from natural language inputs, and not to a mere abstract idea. In particular, claim 21 recites a specific processing architecture that includes…etc.
Examiner Responds:
Applicant's 35 USC § 101 arguments with respect to claims 21-40 have been considered and are not persuasive.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) provides:
“The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").”
Here, the claim remains subject to 35 U.S.C. § 101 because, under the Alice/Mayo framework, the limitations, when considered as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of a “syntactic entity extraction agent,” a “semantic entity extraction agent,” a large language model, a localized database, and generic processor/memory components, the claim as a whole is fundamentally directed to the abstract mental and mathematical processes of interpreting a natural-language query, identifying entities, organizing those entities, and generating a corresponding database query. The claimed syntactic agent merely performs conventional searching and phrase matching against localized entities, while the semantic agent merely processes query text and database schema information using an LLM to produce a structured representation; combining the resulting entities and using the same LLM to formulate query statements likewise amounts to information analysis, classification, and transformation that can be performed by a human or through generic computer-based information processing. The recitation of a “localized database” does not meaningfully alter this characterization because the database is merely the data environment in which the abstract information-processing steps are performed, and the processor and memory are generic computer components invoked to perform their ordinary functions. Further, the claim does not require any particular improvement to database architecture, query execution, indexing, storage, processor operation, or the underlying LLM itself; instead, the alleged improvement resides solely in obtaining a desired result—a database query generated from entities extracted from a user's query. Thus, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application but merely implement the abstract information-processing concept using generic computing technology, and the claim therefore remains directed to an abstract idea under Step 1 of the Alice framework.
Applicant Argues
In contrast, the combination of Shwartz and Bell fails to teach or suggest each and every element recited in claim 21. For example, as discussed during the interview and for at least the reasons described below, the combination of Shwartz and Bell fails to disclose "determining, by a syntactic entity extraction agent, one or more localized entities in a query input received by the system, wherein the syntactic entity extraction agent performs one or more search techniques to match a phrase in the query input with localized entities of a localized database," "determining, by a semantic entity extraction agent, one or more entities in the query input, wherein the semantic entity extraction agent processes the query input and schema information of the localized database with a large language model to generate a structured representation of the query input," and "combining the localized entities determined by the syntactic entity extraction agent and the one or more entities determined by the semantic entity extraction agent to generate a combined set of entities," as recited in amended independent claim 21.
Examiner Responds:
Applicant's 35 USC § 103 arguments with respect to claims 21-40 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 21-33 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 21 recites a system for retrieving data from at least one database and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 21 recites a system for retrieving data from at least one database, the system comprising:
determining, by a syntactic entity extraction agent, one or more localized entities in a query input received by the system, wherein the syntactic entity extraction agent performs one or more search techniques to match a phrase in the query input with localized entities of a localized database;
determining, by a semantic entity extraction agent, one or more entities in the query input, wherein the semantic entity extraction agent processes the query input and schema information of the localized database with a large language model to generate a structured represented of the query input;
combining the localized entities determined by the syntactic entity extraction agent and the one or more entities determined by the semantic entity extraction agent to generate a combined set of entities;
using the large language model and the schema information to generate a database query that includes query statements associated with the combined set of entities. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “a system”, “at least one processor”, “a memory”, “a syntactic entity extraction agent”, and “a large language model” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a system”, “at least one processor”, “a memory”, “a syntactic entity extraction agent”, and “a large language model” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 21 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for the syntactic entity extraction agent, “determining, by a syntactic entity extraction agent, one or more localized entities in a query input received by the system, wherein the syntactic entity extraction agent performs one or more search techniques to match a phrase in the query input with localized entities of a localized database;” encompasses mentally a person determining one or more localized entities in a received query input, wherein mentally performing one or more search techniques to match a phrase in the query input with localized entities of a localized database.
Next, but for the syntactic entity extraction agent, “determining, by a semantic entity extraction agent, one or more entities in the query input, wherein the semantic entity extraction agent processes the query input and schema information of the localized database with a large language model to generate a structured represented of the query input;” encompasses mentally a person determining, by a semantic entity extraction agent, one or more entities in the query input, wherein the semantic entity extraction agent processes the query input and schema information of the localized database with a large language model to generate a structured represented of the query input.
In addition, but for the syntactic entity extraction agent, “combining the localized entities determined by the syntactic entity extraction agent and the one or more entities determined by the semantic entity extraction agent to generate a combined set of entities;” encompasses mentally a person combining the localized entities determined by the syntactic entity extraction agent and the one or more entities determined by the semantic entity extraction agent to generate a combined set of entities.
Next, but for the large language model, “using the large language model and the schema information to generate a database query that includes query statements associated with the combined set of entities.” encompasses mentally a person generating a database query that includes query statements associated with the combined set of entities. The mere nominal recitation of a system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) 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.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 21 recites
at least one processor; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
a large language model
outputting data representative of the database query
Here, “at least one processor;” amounts to a mere generic computer component to apply the abstract idea which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Next, “a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:” amounts to a mere generic computer components and instructions to apply the abstract idea which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Next, “a large language model”” amounts to a mere generic computer component to apply the abstract idea which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In addition, “outputting data representative of the database query” amounts to an insignificant post extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these 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. Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these 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. Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 21 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere evaluating a query and transforming the query cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 21 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “outputting data representative of the database query” step is considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “outputting data representative of the database query” is merely outputting data. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere data output is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “outputting data representative of the database query” step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, “The system of claim 21, wherein: the query input comprises natural language received in a user interface” of dependent claim 22 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant post extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states outputting data is extra solution activity. Next, “outputting data representative of the database query comprises displaying the database query in the user interface” is abstract because the claim encompasses post insignificant post extra-solution activity and amounts to mere displaying data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these 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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these 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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “The system of claim 21, the operations further comprising: executing the generated database query, wherein an output of the executed database query is a resulting data table” of dependent claim 23 is abstract because the claim encompasses post insignificant post extra-solution activity and amounts to mere displaying data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Next, “displaying, on a user interface, a visual representation of the resulting data table” is abstract because the claim encompasses post insignificant post extra-solution activity and amounts to mere displaying data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these 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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “The system of claim 21, the operations further comprising: querying the localized database with the generated database query to determine a subset of data from the localized database” of dependent claim 24 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, “The system of claim 24, the operations further comprising: retrieving data indicative of user access settings, wherein the user access settings include data indicative of an authentication for displaying the determined subset of data on a user interface” of dependent claim 25 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, “The system of claim 21, wherein: the schema information of the localized database includes data field names, data field values, and data types pertaining to data stored in the localized database.” of dependent claim 26 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these 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. Thus, claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, “The system of claim 21, wherein: the localized database includes data related to a clinical trial.” of dependent claim 27 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, “The system of claim 21, wherein: the localized database includes a set of data fields and corresponding data values that are specific to a particular data context and are not represented in a standard training data set of a general foundational large language model.” of dependent claim 28 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, “The system of claim 21, the operations further comprising: parsing the generated database query to determine associated database query statements, the statements comprising select parameters, filter parameters, and grouping parameters” of dependent claim 29 encompasses mentally a person determining parsing the generated database query to determine associated database query statements, the statements comprising select parameters, filter parameters, and grouping parameters. Next, “generating a final database query with a rules-based approach based on the determined database query statements” of dependent claim 29 encompasses mentally a person generating a final database query with a rules-based approach based on the determined database query statements. Accordingly, these 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. Thus, claim 29 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more search techniques comprise exact string matching and fuzzy string matching.” of dependent claim 30 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the one or more search techniques comprise exact string matching and fuzzy string matching. Accordingly, these 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. Thus, claim 30 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, but for the syntactic entity extraction agent, “The system of claim 21, wherein the semantic entity extraction agent processes output of the syntactic entity extraction agent with the large language model to generate the database query” of dependent claim 31 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person generating a query. Accordingly, these 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. Thus, claim 31 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “The system of claim 21, wherein the entities determined by the semantic entity extraction agent are highly represented in training data used to train the large language model” of dependent claim 32 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant post extra-solution activity and amounts to mere displaying data. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, “The system of claim 21, wherein the localized entities determined by the syntactic entity extraction agent are not highly represented in training data used to train the large language model” of dependent claim 33 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant post extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these 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. Thus, claim 33 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 34-39 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 34 recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 34 recites a method for retrieving data from at least one database, the method comprising:
determining, by a syntactic entity extraction agent, one or more localized entities in a query input, wherein the syntactic entity extraction agent performs one or more search techniques to match a phrase in the query input with localized entities of a localized database;
determining, by a semantic entity extraction agent, one or more entities in the query input, wherein the semantic entity extraction agent processes the query input and schema information of the localized database with a large language model to generate a structured representation of the query input;
combining the localized entities determined by the syntactic entity extraction agent and the one or more entities determined by the semantic entity extraction agent to generate a combined set of entities;
using the large language model and the schema information to generate a database query that includes query statements associated with the combined set of entities. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “a syntactic entity extraction agent”, “a localized database”, and “a large language model” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a syntactic entity extraction agent”, “a localized database”, and “a large language model” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 34 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for the syntactic entity extraction agent, “determining, by a syntactic entity extraction agent, one or more localized entities in a query input, wherein the syntactic entity extraction agent performs one or more search techniques to match a phrase in the query input with localized entities of a localized database;” encompasses mentally a person determining one or more localized entities in a received query input, wherein mentally performing one or more search techniques to match a phrase in the query input with localized entities of a localized database.
Next, but for the syntactic entity extraction agent, “determining, by a semantic entity extraction agent, one or more entities in the query input, wherein the semantic entity extraction agent processes the query input and schema information of the localized database with a large language model to generate a structured representation of the query input;” encompasses mentally a person determining wherein the semantic entity extraction agent processes the query input and schema information of the localized database with a large language model to generate a structured representation of the query input.
In addition, but for the syntactic entity extraction agent, “combining the localized entities determined by the syntactic entity extraction agent and the one or more entities determined by the semantic entity extraction agent to generate a combined set of entities;” encompasses mentally a person combining the localized entities and the one or more entities to generate a combined set of entities.
Next, but for the large language model, “using the large language model and the schema to generate a database query that includes query statements associated with the combined set of entities;” encompasses mentally a person generating a database query that includes query statements associated with the combined set of entities. The mere nominal recitation of a system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) 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.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 34 recites
a large language model
outputting data representative of the database query
Next, “a large language model”” amounts to a mere generic computer component to apply the abstract idea which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In addition, “outputting data representative of the database query” amounts to an insignificant post extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these 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. Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these 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. Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 34 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere evaluating a query and transforming the query cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 34 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “outputting data representative of the database query” step is considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “outputting data representative of the database query” is merely outputting data. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere data output is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “outputting data representative of the database query” step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, “The method of claim 34, wherein: the query input comprises natural language prompt received in a user interface” of dependent claim 35 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant post extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states outputting data is extra solution activity. Next, “outputting data representative of the database query comprises displaying the database query in the user interface” is abstract because the claim encompasses post insignificant post extra-solution activity and amounts to mere displaying data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these 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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these 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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “The method of claim 34, further comprising: querying the localized database with the generated database query to determine a subset of data from the localized database” of dependent claim 36 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, “The method of claim 36, further comprising: retrieving data indicative of user access settings, wherein the user access settings include data indicative of an authentication for displaying the determined subset of data on a user interface” of dependent claim 37 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, “The method of claim 34, wherein: the localized database includes data related to a clinical trial.” of dependent claim 38 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, “The method of claim 34, wherein: the entities determined by the semantic entity extraction agent are highly represented in training data used to train the large language model” of dependent claim 39 encompasses mentally a person determining the entities are highly represented in training data used to train the large language model. Next, “the localized entities determined by the syntactic entity extraction agent are not highly represented in the training data used to train the large language model” of dependent claim 39 encompasses mentally a person determining the localized entities are not highly represented in the training data used to train the large language model. Accordingly, these 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. Thus, claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 40 is ineligible:
As to step one, claim 40 recites a one or more non-transitory computer readable media and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 40 recites one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to retrieve data from at least one database by performing operations comprising:
determining, by a syntactic entity extraction agent, one or more localized entities in a query input, wherein the syntactic entity extraction agent performs one or more search techniques to match a phrase in the query input with localized entities of a localized database;
determining, by a semantic entity extraction agent, one or more entities in the query input, wherein the semantic entity extraction agent processes the query input and schema information of the localized database with a large language model to generate a structured representation of the query input;
combining the localized entities determined by the syntactic entity extraction agent and the one or more entities determined by the semantic entity extraction agent to generate a combined set of entities;
generating, using the large language model and the schema information, a database query that includes query statements associated with the combined set of entities.
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “One or more non-transitory computer readable media”, “at least one processor”, “a syntactic entity extraction agent”, “at least one database”, and “a large language model” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “One or more non-transitory computer readable media”, “at least one processor”, “a syntactic entity extraction agent”, “at least one database”, and “a large language model” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 40 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for the syntactic entity extraction agent, “determining, by a syntactic entity extraction agent, one or more localized entities in a query input, wherein the syntactic entity extraction agent performs one or more search techniques to match a phrase in the query input with localized entities of a localized database;” encompasses mentally a person determining one or more localized entities in a query input, wherein mentally performing one or more search techniques to match a phrase in the query input with localized entities of a localized database.
Next, but for the syntactic entity extraction agent, “determining, by a semantic entity extraction agent, one or more entities in the query input, wherein the semantic entity extraction agent processes the query input and schema information of the localized database with a large language model to generate a structured representation of the query input;” encompasses mentally a person determining one or more entities in the query input, wherein mentally processing the query input and schema information of the localized database with a large language model.
In addition, but for the syntactic entity extraction agent, “combining the localized entities determined by the syntactic entity extraction agent and the one or more entities determined by the semantic entity extraction agent to generate a combined set of entities;” encompasses mentally a person combining the localized entities and the one or more entities to generate a combined set of entities.
Next, but for the large language model, “generating, using the large language model and the schema information, a database query that includes query statements associated with the combined set of entities” encompasses mentally a person generating a database query that includes query statements associated with the combined set of entities. The mere nominal recitation of a system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) 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.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 40 recites
a large language model
outputting data representative of the database query
Next, “a large language model”” amounts to a mere generic computer component to apply the abstract idea which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In addition, “outputting data representative of the database query” amounts to an insignificant post extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these 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. Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these 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. Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 40 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere evaluating a query and transforming the query cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 40 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “outputting data representative of the database query” step is considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
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 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 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brende U.S. Patent (2024/0394251; hereinafter: Brende) in view of Kesarwani et al. U.S. Patent (2022/0138216; hereinafter: Kesarwani)
Claims 21, 34, and 40
As to claims 21, 34, and 20, Brende discloses a system for retrieving data from at least one database, the system comprising:
at least one processor (paragraph[0202], the reference describes using a processor.); and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising (paragraph[0202], the reference describes using a processor to execute instructions.):
determining, by a syntactic entity extraction agent, one or more localized entities in a query input, wherein the syntactic entity extraction agent performs one or more search techniques to match a phrase in the query input with localized entities of a localized database (paragraph[0116]-paragraph[0119], the reference describes extracting from a natural query data that corresponds with a database schema, entities, and table.);
determining, by a semantic entity extraction agent, one or more entities in the query input, wherein the semantic entity extraction agent processes the query input and schema information of the localized database with a large language model to generate a structured representation of the query input (paragraph[0136]-pragraphp0138], the reference describes using a llm and a database schema to determine the natural language input to convert into a database query.);
combining the localized entities determined by the syntactic entity extraction agent and the one or more entities determined by the semantic entity extraction agent to generate a combined set of entities(paragraph[0137, the reference describes using the syntactic and semantic data to generate a query commands and elements (i.e., set of entities, as claimed) to gather data from a database.);
Brende does not appear to explicitly disclose
using the large language model and the schema information to generate a database query that includes query statements associated with the combined set of entities; and
outputting data representative of the database query.
However, Kesarwani discloses using the large language model and the schema information to generate a database query that includes query statements associated with the combined set of entities (paragraph[0024]-paragraph[0025] and paragraph[0030], the reference describes generating a query based on the entities created from the database ontology (i.e., schema, as claimed) and models (i.e., LLM, as claimed).); and
outputting data representative of the database query (paragraph[0026], the reference describes the query results.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Brende with the teachings of Kesarwani to generate database queries from natural language input which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Brende with the teachings of Kesarwani to efficiently retrieve data from different data repositories (Bell: paragraph[0002]).
Claims 22 and 35
As to claims 22 and 35, the combination of Brende and Kesarwani discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Brende further disclose comprising:
the query input comprises natural language received in a user interface (paragraph[0059], the reference describes natural language queries using an interface.); and
outputting data representative of the database query comprises displaying the database query in the user interface (paragraph[0054], the reference describes previewing the query on an interface.).
executing the generated database query, wherein an output of the executed query is a resulting data table (paragraph[0198], the reference describes outputting the data in a dashboard table.);
displaying, on a user interface, a visual representation of the resulting data table(paragraph[0198], the reference describes outputting the data in a dashboard table.).
Claim 23
As to claim 23, the combination of Brende and Kesarwani discloses all the elements in claim 21, as noted above, and Kesarwani further disclose the operations further comprising:
executing the generated database query, wherein an output of the executed database query is a resulting data table (paragraph[0029], the reference describes outputting tables.); and
displaying, on a user interface, a visual representation of the resulting data table(paragraph[0029]-paragraph[0030], the reference describes display ranked tables to the user for feedback.).).
Claims 24 and 36
As to claims 24 and 36, the combination of Brende and Kesarwani discloses all the elements in claim 21, as noted above, and Kesarwani further disclose the operations further comprising:
querying the localized database with the generated database query to determine a subset of data from the localized database (paragraph[0029], the reference describes querying and returning data sets.).
Claims 25 and 37
As to claims 25 and 37, the combination of Brende and Kesarwani discloses all the elements in claim 24, as noted above, and Kesarwani further disclose the operations further comprising:
retrieving data indicative of user access settings, wherein the user access settings include data indicative of an authentication for displaying the determined subset of data on a user interface (paragraph[0035], the reference describes using access and security to display a dataset.).
Claim 26
As to claim 26, the combination of Brende and Kesarwani discloses all the elements in claim 21, as noted above, and Brende further disclose wherein the schema information of the localized database includes data field names, data field values, and data types pertaining to data stored in the localized database (paragraph[0110], the reference describe database having fields and data types.).
Claims 27, 28, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brende U.S. Patent (2024/0394251; hereinafter: Brende) in view of Kesarwani et al. U.S. Patent (2022/0138216; hereinafter: Kesarwani) and further in view of Bell et al. U.S. Patent (2024/0404702; hereinafter: Bell, in IDS dated 2/18/2026)
Claims 27 and 38
As to claims 27 and 38, the combination of Brende and Kesarwani discloses all the elements in claim 21, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose further disclose wherein:
the localized database includes data related to a clinical trial.
However, Bell discloses wherein:
the localized database includes data related to a clinical trial (paragraph[0066], the reference describes a clinical database.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Brende with the teachings of Kesarwani and Bell to perform machine learning on data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Brende with the teachings of Kesarwani and Bell to efficiently deploy task-specific machine learning agents (Bell: paragraph[0002]).
Claim 28
As to claim 28, the combination of Brende and Kesarwani and Bell discloses all the elements in claim 21, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose the localized database a set of data fields and corresponding data values that are specific to a particular data context and are not represented in a standard training data set of a general foundational large language model.
However, Bell further discloses the localized database a set of data fields and corresponding data values that are specific to a particular data context and are not represented in a standard training data set of a general foundational large language model (paragraph[0054], the reference describes an agent being trained from large language models.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Brende with the teachings of Kesarwani and Bell to perform machine learning on data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Brende with the teachings of Kesarwani and Bell to efficiently deploy task-specific machine learning agents (Bell: paragraph[0002]).
Claim 30
As to claim 30, the combination of Shwartz and Bell discloses all the elements in claim 21, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more search techniques comprise exact string matching and fuzzy string matching
However, Bell discloses wherein the one or more search techniques comprise exact string matching and fuzzy string matching (paragraph[0528], the reference discloses using fuzzy and matching techniques.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Brende with the teachings of Kesarwani and Bell to perform machine learning on data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Brende with the teachings of Kesarwani and Bell to efficiently deploy task-specific machine learning agents (Bell: paragraph[0002]).
Claim 32
As to claim 32, the combination of Shwartz and Bell discloses all the elements in claim 21, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the entities determined by the semantic entity extraction agent are highly represented in training data used to train the large language model
However, Bell discloses wherein the entities determined by the semantic entity extraction agent are highly represented in training data used to train the large language model (paragraph[0054], the reference describes an agent being trained from large language models.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Brende with the teachings of Kesarwani and Bell to perform machine learning on data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Brende with the teachings of Kesarwani and Bell to efficiently deploy task-specific machine learning agents (Bell: paragraph[0002]).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brende U.S. Patent (2024/0394251; hereinafter: Brende) in view of Kesarwani et al. U.S. Patent (2022/0138216; hereinafter: Kesarwani) and further in view of Kosciusko et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2007/0038618; hereinafter: Kosciusko)
Claim 29
As to claim 29, the combination of Brende and Kosciusko discloses all the elements in claim 21, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose the operations further comprising:
parsing the generated database query to determine associated database query statements, the statements comprising select parameters, filter parameters, and grouping parameters; and
generating a final database query with a rules-based approach based on the determined database query statements.
However, Kosciusko discloses operations further comprising:
parsing the generated database query to determine associated database query statements, the statements comprising select parameters, filter parameters, and grouping parameters (paragraph[0029], the reference describes parsing the query to determining the what is in the statement.); and
generating a final database query with a rules-based approach based on the determined database query statements (paragraph[0051], the reference describes generating an optimized query.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Brende with the teachings of Kesarwani and Kosciusko to provide optimize queries which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Brende with the teachings of Kesarwani and Kosciusko to efficiently parse queries to determine relationships between portions of the selected database query (Kosciusko: paragraph[0006]).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brende U.S. Patent (2024/0394251; hereinafter: Brende) in view of Kesarwani et al. U.S. Patent (2022/0138216; hereinafter: Kesarwani) and further in view of Chang et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2017/0177715; hereinafter: Chang)
Claim 31
As to claim 31, the combination of Brende and Kesarwani discloses all the elements in claim 21, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose further disclose wherein the semantic entity extraction agent processes output of the syntactic entity extraction agent with a large language model to generate the database query.
However, Chang discloses wherein the semantic entity extraction agent processes output of the syntactic entity extraction agent with a large language model to generate the database query (paragraph[0072], the reference describes using an extraction feature with a model.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Brende with the teachings of Kesarwani and Chang to provide extract data from a query which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Brende with the teachings of Kesarwani and Chang to efficiently answer questions from natural language input (Chang: paragraph[0003]).
Claims 33 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brende U.S. Patent (2024/0394251; hereinafter: Brende) in view of Kesarwani et al. U.S. Patent (2022/0138216; hereinafter: Kesarwani) and further in view of Jain et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0176962; hereinafter: Jain)
Claim 33
As to claim 33, the combination of Brende and Kesarwani discloses all the elements in claim 21, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the localized entities determined by the syntactic entity extraction agent are not highly represented in training data used to train the large language model.
However, Jain discloses wherein the localized entities determined by the syntactic entity extraction agent are not highly represented in training data used to train the large language model (paragraph[0146], the reference describes generating training data not used in the set of training data.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Brende with the teachings of Kesarwani and Jain to provide new training data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Brende with the teachings of Kesarwani and Jain to efficiently find tune models based on a base language and one or more target languages (Jain: Abstract).
Claim 39
As to claim 39, the combination of Kesarwani and Jain and Bell discloses all the elements in claim 34, as noted above, and Bell further disclose wherein:
the one or more entities determined by the semantic entity extraction agent are highly represented in training data used to train the large language model(paragraph[0054], the reference describes an agent being trained from large language models.);
Bell does not appear to explicitly disclose the localized entities determined by the syntactic entity extraction agent are not highly represented in the training data used to train the large language model.
However, Jain discloses the localized entities determined by the syntactic entity extraction agent are not highly represented in the training data used to train the large language model(paragraph[0146], the reference describes generating training data not used in the set of training data.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Brende with the teachings of Kesarwani and Jain to provide new training data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Brende with the teachings of Kesarwani and Jain to efficiently find tune models based on a base language and one or more target languages (Jain: Abstract).
Final Action
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAUNE A CONYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3552. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm EST. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached on (571) 270-0474. 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.
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024
Prosecution Insights