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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the communication filed on 7/16/26. Claims 1, 3, 8 and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
2. Applicants' arguments filed 7/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Specification
3. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Amended claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the limitation “semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the first plurality of files”. The limitation is not clearly defined in the instant Applicant’s specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
4. Amended claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The original disclosure (such as paragraph [0028] of the instant applicant’s specification) does not contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art that it pertains the limitation “semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the first plurality of files”. The new limitation “semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the first plurality of files” in the amended claims 1, 8 and 15 are considered to be new matter.
Dependent claims are rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of the base claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 1, 8 and 15,
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the limitation “semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the first plurality of files” respectively, but there is no clear definition of the limitation in the instant applicant’s specification.
Therefore, claims 1, 8 and 15 are indefinite.
Dependent claims are rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of the base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis below of the claims’ subject matter eligibility follows the guidance set forth in MPEP 2106 which has incorporated the 2019 PEG.
Regarding to claim 1,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 1 recites: A method comprising:
“based on a first natural language query associated with a first client, determining, based on a first user profile associated with the first client, first access rights, wherein the first access rights indicate the first client may access a first space comprising a first plurality of files”. This element reads on a person determines first access rights indicate access a first space comprising a first files based on a natural language query and a first user profile which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“retrieving, via the first space, first data comprising at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the first plurality of files”. This element reads on a person retrieves, via the first space, first data comprising at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the first files which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“generating, based on the first data, a first response to the first natural language query”. This element reads on a person generates, based on the first data, a first response to the first natural language query which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“based on a second natural language query associated with a second client device, determining, based on a second user profile associated with the second client device, second access rights, wherein the second access rights indicate the second client device may access the first space comprising the first plurality of files and a second space comprising a second plurality of files, wherein the first user profile does not indicate access rights to the second space”. This element reads on a person determines second access rights indicate access a second space based on a natural language query and a second user profile, wherein the second access rights indicate the second client device may access the first space comprising the first plurality of files and a second space comprising a second plurality of files, wherein the first user profile does not indicate access rights to the second space which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“retrieving, via the first space and the second space, second data comprising: the at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the first plurality of files, and at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the second plurality of files”. This element reads on a person retrieves, via the first space and the second space, second data comprising: the at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the first plurality of files, and at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the second plurality of files which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“generating, based on the second data, a second response”. This element reads on a person generates, based on the second data, a second response which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“sending, based on the first natural language query and the second natural language query, the first response to the first client and the second response to the second client”. This element reads on a person sends the first response to the first client and the second response to the second client which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
Overall, the limitations directed to send response based on access rights on space and the various mental process limitations in the context of this claim encompasses limitations that are not only considered to be directed to limitations that could be practically performed in the human mind (including observations and preform an evaluation, judgment, and opinion) aided by the use of pen and paper. If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: In Step 2A Prong 2, we are directed to Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of “device”
Regarding the device,
The processor of a device for generating and storing in all steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (generating and storing). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component(s). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element “a device” is simply applying the abstract idea, and there is nothing done with results. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and does not provide any improvement in computer technology (see MPEP2106.05(a)).
Therefore, the additional element(s) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: In Step 2B, we are directed to Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, The additional element(s) “a device” is simply applying the abstract idea, and there is nothing done with results.
Accordingly, this additional element(s), taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites “causing, based on the first user profile, the first client device to be restricted from accessing the second space." That is, the claim recites causing, based on the first user profile, the first client device to be restricted from accessing the second space. The above-noted limitation of claim 2, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 3 recites “
generating, based on the first natural language query, a query embedding;
retrieving, using the query embedding, relevant information from the first plurality of files based on the at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the first plurality of files and the first access rights;
causing a large language model to process the relevant information as context; and generating, based on output from the large language model, the first response." That is, the claim recites
generating, based on the first natural language query, a query embedding;
retrieving, using the query embedding, relevant information from the first plurality of files based on the at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the first plurality of files and the first access rights;
causing a large language model to process the relevant information as context. The above-noted limitation of claim 3, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 4 is dependent on claims 1-2, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 4 recites “
receiving, based on a third natural language query from the first client device, a third request for information related to the second space;
determining, based on the first user profile, that the first client device lacks access rights to the second space; and
sending, based on the lack of access rights, a notification to the first client device indicating that the requested information is not accessible." That is, the claim recites
receiving, based on a third natural language query from the first client device, a third request for information related to the second space;
determining, based on the first user profile, that the first client device lacks access rights to the second space; and
sending, based on the lack of access rights, a notification to the first client device indicating that the requested information is not accessible.
. The above-noted limitation of claim 4, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 5 recites “
accessing, based on the first user profile and the second user profile, a database of user permissions; and
retrieving, based on the database, space identifiers associated with each user profile." That is, the claim recites
accessing, based on the first user profile and the second user profile, a database of user permissions; and
retrieving, based on the database, space identifiers associated with each user profile. The above-noted limitation of claim 5, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 6 is dependent on claims 1&5, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the space identifiers comprise globally unique identifiers (GUIDs) associated with logical containers having built-in security parameters." That is, the claim recites the space identifiers comprise globally unique identifiers (GUIDs) associated with logical containers having built-in security parameters. The above-noted limitation of claim 6, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 7 recites “
generating, based on the first response and the second response, a log of accessed information;
determining, based on the log, usage patterns for the first space and the second space; and
causing, based on the usage patterns, an update to access rights for at least one of the first user profile or the second user profile." That is, the claim recites
generating, based on the first response and the second response, a log of accessed information;
determining, based on the log, usage patterns for the first space and the second space; and
causing, based on the usage patterns, an update to access rights for at least one of the first user profile or the second user profile. The above-noted limitation of claim 7, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, this additional element, taken individually and in combination, does not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the same rational of claims 1-7.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the same rational of claims 1-7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
10. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
11. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PIERSON et al (WO 2016090326 A1, hereinafter “PIERSON”) in view of Chen (Title: Policy-Based Access Control in Federated Clinical Question Answering, Author: Alice Chen, Date: May, 2024, Pages 1-100, Publisher: MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, hereinafter, “Chen”).
12. With respect to claim 1,
PIERSON discloses a method comprising:
based on a first natural language query associated with a first client device, determining, based on a first user profile associated with the first client device, first access rights, wherein the first access rights indicate the first client device may access a first space comprising a first plurality of files (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. contents) (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. [0028] According to a further aspect of the invention, there is provided a digital platform to provide recommendations for content. The platform comprises a server, and the server comprises a server processor and memory. The memory comprises instructions executable by the processor, and when executed the instructions cause the platform perform a sequence of steps: The platform creates a digital space comprising user profiles for each of a plurality of users and a plurality of contents. The platform divides the digital space into a private digital space and a public digital space. The platform associates each of the plurality of contents with one or more of the private digital space or the public digital space. The platform determines access rights for the plurality of users with regard to the private digital space. And the platform control user access of contents associated with the private digital space in response to the access rights. The platform further collects the plurality of contents. The platform allows the plurality of users to provide insights on one or more accessed contents, and the platform records learning journals of the plurality of users reflecting access of the plurality of contents by the plurality of users. The platform further performs a sequence of steps to generate recommendations of content: The platform generates a graphical model with a plurality of content nodes, a plurality of user nodes, and a plurality of concept nodes. The platform assigns each of the plurality of users to a corresponding user node in the plurality of user nodes and each of the plurality of contents to a corresponding content node in plurality of content nodes. The platform associates the plurality of user nodes with concept nodes by analyzing access behaviors, the insights, the learning journals, and the user profiles. The platform associates the plurality of content nodes with concept nodes in response to user access of the contents, user insights provided for the contents, and one or more components of the contents. The platform compares the plurality of contents to the plurality of users. And the platform recommends one or more contents of the plurality of contents to the plurality of users in response to said comparing. [0055] In another aspect, a method provides recommendations for content. A digital space is created comprising user profiles for each of a plurality of users and a plurality of contents. The digital space is dived into a private digital space and a public digital space. Each of the plurality of contents is associated with one or more of the private digital space or the public digital space. Access rights are determined for the plurality of users with regard to the private digital space. User access is controlled for contents associated with the private digital space in response to the access rights. The plurality of contents is collected. The plurality of users is allowed to provide insights on one or more accessed contents. Learning journals of the plurality of users are recorded reflecting access of the plurality of contents by the plurality of users. Recommendations of content are generated by: … [00236] The platform aggregates data contents by elastic search, natural language processing, makes sense of massive volumes of content, transcending the information that exist on the Internet and indistinct systems. The platform uses profiles to catalyze big data, institutional data and proprietary algorithms (e.g., an analysis method developed by an enterprise IT department) to understand each user’s dynamic learning profile, breadth of influence and depths of engagement);
generating, based on the first data (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. private space), a first response (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. response) to the first natural language query (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. elastic search, natural language processing);
based on a second natural language query (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. elastic search, natural language processing) associated with a second client device, determining, based on a second user profile (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. user profile) associated with the second client device, second access rights (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. access rights);
generating, based on the second data (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. public space), a second response (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. response); and
sending, based on the first natural language query and the second natural language query, the first response to the first client device and the second response to the second client device (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. response).
Although PIERSON substantially teaches the claimed invention, PIERSON does not explicitly indicate
retrieving, via the first space, first data comprising at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the first plurality of files;
wherein the second access rights indicate the second client device may access the first space comprising the first plurality of files and a second space comprising a second plurality of files, wherein the first user profile does not indicate access rights to the second space;
retrieving, via the first space and the second space, second data comprising: the at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the first plurality of files, and at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the second plurality of files
Chen teaches the limitations by stating
based on a first natural language query (Chen pages 15-16, 29 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. natural-language query) associated with a first client device, determining, based on a first user profile (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. user security profile – B.nurse) associated with the first client device, first access rights (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. access rights - authorized access pattern/access control schemes), wherein the first access rights indicate the first client device may access a first space (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. . Hospital B) comprising a first plurality of files (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. records, documents);
retrieving, via the first space, first data comprising at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the first plurality of files (e.g. document embedding/embeddings per document - Chen pages 19, 23, 29, 38, 53, 93 e.g. We summarize prior work on applying natural-language models to the clinical-domain: ClinicalBERT contextualized word embeddings [2] were obtained by training the general BERT transformer model [9] on both clinical text and discharge summaries. ClinicalBERT achieves better performance than previous medical embedding models and general-domain BERT on the MedNLI [26] natural language inference task from EHR documents. Thus, we plan to use similarity scores between the ClinicalBERT embeddings of source patient EHR documents and a user query to retrieve the top 𝑘 most relevant documents to a query. …. Each leaf retriever’s knowledge vector store is initialized with sentence-transformer embeddings of its EHR document database, using mean-pooling over the ClinicalBERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) contextualized word embeddings [2] per document. On a query, cosine similarity scores between the query’s ClinicalBERT sentence embedding and the HER document’s ClinicalBERT sentence embeddings are used to determine the top 𝑘-relevant documents retrieved. … A secretshared inverted file index (IVF) constructed from multi-server federated vector stores is used to perform approximate search while keeping query and document embeddings private. … Retriever: We primarily considered the medical domain fine-tuned Clinical-BERT embeddings [2] and the general-domain OpenAI text-embedding-3-small embeddings. We qualitatively observed more relevant retrieved document sets using the OpenAI embeddings, especially for staying on-topic if given queries mentioning specific patient names, where ClinicalBERT retrieved documents related to the query’s general clinical concern but from unrelated patients. … If |𝐷𝑎𝑢𝑡ℎ| > 𝑘, then we truncate (and then return) 𝐷𝑎𝑢𝑡ℎ to the top 𝑘 most relevant documents by ClinicalBERT embedding similarity score to the query. … The retrieved documents are displayed in descending order of relevancy score, so the topmost document (displayed in Figure 4-3) has the highest ClinicalBERT embedding cosine-similarity score of 0.898 among all EHR record documents in the federated hospital hierarchy that the logged-in user can access. …. referring the instant applicant’s specification [0028]);
generating, based on the first data (e.g. Hospital B – documents, records), a first response (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. retrieval) to the first natural language query (Chen pages 16-17, 29 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. natural-language query);
based on a second natural language query associated with a second client device, determining, based on a second user profile associated with the second client device, second access rights, wherein the second access rights indicate the second client device may access the first space comprising the first plurality of files and a second space comprising a second plurality of files, wherein the first user profile does not indicate access rights to the second space (Chen pages 16-17, 29, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. 5.2 Setting up Mock Users The FS-RAG retrieval architecture must dynamically restrict the set of retrieved documents based on authorization policies on user-resource attributes to protect against EHR information leakage. We created eight mock users holding different security properties due to varying combinations of user authorization attribute values (i.e. hospital organization, department, role, and affiliated research groups) (see Table 5.2). Note that A.admin refers to administrative staff involved with handling patient admissions, insurance information, and other logistical tasks, and not "root"/superuser level access. As described in Implementation (see Section 4.2), we Table 5.2: Table of user access control attributes for evaluation.
User org role dept affiliations
A.phys.neur A physician medicine C_neuro
A.phys A physician surgery
A.nurse A nurse psychiatry
A.tech.rad A technician radiology
A.admin A admin
B.phys B physician cardiology
B.nurse B nurse medicine
C.research C researcher neurology
instantiated PBAC policy decision points from JSON py-abac policies at all hospital router and leaf retrievers. On retrieval for the same clinical trend query, different mock users should receive different access control allow/deny decisions at various retriever PDP points in the retrieval hierarchy. We summarize the authorized access pattern of all eight user security profiles over the federated 3-hospital case study in Figure 5-2, where green checkmarked boxes indicate ALLOW PBAC decisions and red x-ed boxes indicate DENY PBAC decisions for each particular PDP policy set.
…
Figure 5-2: Table of federated retriever PBAC access for all mock users (Table 5.2). Note the asymmetry between hospital policy access control schemes: hospital B grants A.nurse access to all router/department retrievers, but hospital A restricts B.nurse to only the router and admissions data. We note that PDP DENY decisions at a retriever are coarse-grained and thus squash the user’s query without propagating it down any retrievers in its subtree. For example, we observe that C.research is denied access at hospitals A and B’s router-level
retriever and thus is automatically unable to access any A/B leaf retrievers. On the other hand, all Hospital A users are granted access at Hospital C’s router retriever despite exclusively A.phys.neur holding actual access to any Hospital C EHR documents at the leaf-level [as
based on a second natural language query (Chen pages 16-17, 29 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. natural-language query) associated with a second client device, determining, based on a second user profile (e.g. user security profile – A.nurse) associated with the second client device, second access rights (e.g. access rights - authorized access pattern/access control schemes), wherein the second access rights indicate the second client device may access the first space (e.g. Hospital B) comprising the first plurality of files (e.g. documents, records) and a second space (e.g. Hospital A ) comprising a second plurality of files (e.g. documents, records), wherein the first user profile (e.g. user security profile – B.nurse) does not indicate access rights to the second space (e.g. hospital A restricts B.nurse to only the router and admissions data);
retrieving, via the first space (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. Hospital B) and the second space (e.g. Hospital A), second data comprising: the at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the first plurality of files, and at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the second plurality of files (e.g. document embedding/embeddings per document - Chen pages 19, 23, 29, 38, 53, 93 e.g. We summarize prior work on applying natural-language models to the clinical-domain: ClinicalBERT contextualized word embeddings [2] were obtained by training the general BERT transformer model [9] on both clinical text and discharge summaries. ClinicalBERT achieves better performance than previous medical embedding models and general-domain BERT on the MedNLI [26] natural language inference task from EHR documents. Thus, we plan to use similarity scores between the ClinicalBERT embeddings of source patient EHR documents and a user query to retrieve the top 𝑘 most relevant documents to a query. …. Each leaf retriever’s knowledge vector store is initialized with sentence-transformer embeddings of its EHR document database, using mean-pooling over the ClinicalBERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) contextualized word embeddings [2] per document. On a query, cosine similarity scores between the query’s ClinicalBERT sentence embedding and the HER document’s ClinicalBERT sentence embeddings are used to determine the top 𝑘-relevant documents retrieved. … A secretshared inverted file index (IVF) constructed from multi-server federated vector stores is used to perform approximate search while keeping query and document embeddings private. … Retriever: We primarily considered the medical domain fine-tuned Clinical-BERT embeddings [2] and the general-domain OpenAI text-embedding-3-small embeddings. We qualitatively observed more relevant retrieved document sets using the OpenAI embeddings, especially for staying on-topic if given queries mentioning specific patient names, where ClinicalBERT retrieved documents related to the query’s general clinical concern but from unrelated patients. … If |𝐷𝑎𝑢𝑡ℎ| > 𝑘, then we truncate (and then return) 𝐷𝑎𝑢𝑡ℎ to the top 𝑘 most relevant documents by ClinicalBERT embedding similarity score to the query. … The retrieved documents are displayed in descending order of relevancy score, so the topmost document (displayed in Figure 4-3) has the highest ClinicalBERT embedding cosine-similarity score of 0.898 among all EHR record documents in the federated hospital hierarchy that the logged-in user can access. …. referring the instant applicant’s specification [0028]);
generating, based on the second data, a second response (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. retrieval); and
sending, based on the first natural language query and the second natural language query, the first response (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. retrieval) to the first client device and the second response (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. retrieval) to the second client device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, in view of the teachings of PIERSON and Chen, to provide improved methods and apparatus of profiling people using computers with improved specificity in order to provide improved searching and presentation of data (PIERSON [0006]).
13. With respect to claim 2,
PIERSON further discloses causing, based on the first user profile, the first client device to be restricted from accessing the second space (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. private space).
Chen further discloses causing, based on the first user profile, the first client device to be restricted from accessing the second space (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. Fig. 5-2).
14. With respect to claim 3,
Chen further discloses
generating, based on the first natural language query (Chen pages 15-16, 29 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. natural-language query), a query embedding (Chen pages 19, 23, 29, 38, 53, 93 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. query embedding; query by embedding; query-embedding);
retrieving, using the query embedding, relevant information from the first plurality of files based on the at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the first plurality of files and the first access rights (e.g. document embedding/embeddings per document - Chen pages 19, 23, 29, 38, 53, 93);
causing a large language model to process the relevant information as context; and generating, based on output from the large language model, the first response (Chen pages 19-20, 25, 27 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. relevant documents to a query).
15. With respect to claim 5,
PIERSON further discloses
accessing, based on the first user profile and the second user profile, a database of user permissions; and
retrieving, based on the database, space identifiers associated with each user profile (PIERSON [00116] e.g. unique identifier).
Chen further discloses
accessing, based on the first user profile and the second user profile, a database of user permissions; and
retrieving, based on the database, space identifiers associated with each user profile (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. Hospitals A and/or B).
16. With respect to claim 6,
PIERSON further discloses wherein the space identifiers comprise globally unique identifiers (GUIDs) associated with logical containers having built-in security parameters (PIERSON [00116] e.g. unique identifier; access rights).
Chen further discloses wherein the space identifiers comprise globally unique identifiers (GUIDs) associated with logical containers having built-in security parameters (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. Hospitals A and/or B; access rights - authorized access pattern/access control schemes).
17. With respect to claim 8,
PIERSON further discloses
receiving, via a first client device, a first natural language query (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. elastic search, natural language processing), wherein the first client device is associated with a first user profile (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. user profile) indicating first access rights (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. access rights) to a first space (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. private space) comprising a first file, wherein the first access rights indicate the first client device may access a first plurality of portions of the first file (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. access rights);
generating, based on the first data (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. contents), a first response (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. response);
receiving, via a second client device, a second natural language query (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. elastic search, natural language processing), wherein the second client device is associated with a second user profile (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. user profile) indicating second access rights (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. access rights) to a second space comprising the first file;
generating, based on the second data (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. contents), a second response (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. response); and
sending, based on the first natural language query and the second natural language query, the first response (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. response) to the first client device and the second response (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. response) to the second client device.
Chen further discloses
receiving, via a first client device, a first natural language query (Chen pages 15-16, 29 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. natural-language query), wherein the first client device is associated with a first user profile (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. user security profile – B.nurse) indicating first access rights (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. access rights - authorized access pattern/access control schemes) to a first space (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. . Hospital B) comprising a first file, wherein the first access rights indicate the first client device may access a first plurality of portions (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. records, documents) of the first file, and wherein at least one other portion of the first file is inaccessible to the first client device based on the first access rights (Chen pages 16-17, 29, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. 5.2 Setting up Mock Users The FS-RAG retrieval architecture must dynamically restrict the set of retrieved documents based on authorization policies on user-resource attributes to protect against EHR information leakage. We created eight mock users holding different security properties due to varying combinations of user authorization attribute values (i.e. hospital organization, department, role, and affiliated research groups) (see Table 5.2). Note that A.admin refers to administrative staff involved with handling patient admissions, insurance information, and other logistical tasks, and not "root"/superuser level access. As described in Implementation (see Section 4.2), we Table 5.2: Table of user access control attributes for evaluation.
User org role dept affiliations
A.phys.neur A physician medicine C_neuro
A.phys A physician surgery
A.nurse A nurse psychiatry
A.tech.rad A technician radiology
A.admin A admin
B.phys B physician cardiology
B.nurse B nurse medicine
C.research C researcher neurology
instantiated PBAC policy decision points from JSON py-abac policies at all hospital router and leaf retrievers. On retrieval for the same clinical trend query, different mock users should receive different access control allow/deny decisions at various retriever PDP points in the retrieval hierarchy. We summarize the authorized access pattern of all eight user security profiles over the federated 3-hospital case study in Figure 5-2, where green checkmarked boxes indicate ALLOW PBAC decisions and red x-ed boxes indicate DENY PBAC decisions for each particular PDP policy set.
…
Figure 5-2: Table of federated retriever PBAC access for all mock users (Table 5.2). Note the asymmetry between hospital policy access control schemes: hospital B grants A.nurse access to all router/department retrievers, but hospital A restricts B.nurse to only the router and admissions data. We note that PDP DENY decisions at a retriever are coarse-grained and thus squash the user’s query without propagating it down any retrievers in its subtree. For example, we observe that C.research is denied access at hospitals A and B’s router-level
retriever and thus is automatically unable to access any A/B leaf retrievers. On the other hand, all Hospital A users are granted access at Hospital C’s router retriever despite exclusively A.phys.neur holding actual access to any Hospital C EHR documents at the leaf-level [as wherein at least one other portion of the first file is inaccessible to the first client device based on the first access rights (e.g. hospital A restricts B.nurse to only the router and admissions data)];
retrieving, via the first space, first data comprising at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the first plurality of portions of the first file (e.g. document embedding/embeddings per document - Chen pages 19, 23, 29, 38, 53, 93);
generating, based on the first data, a first response (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. retrieval);
receiving, via a second client device, a second natural language query (Chen pages 15-16, 29 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. natural-language query), wherein the second client device is associated with a second user profile (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. user security profile – A.nurse) indicating second access rights (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. access rights - authorized access pattern/access control schemes) to a second space (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. . Hospital A) comprising the first file, wherein the second access rights indicate the second client device may access a second plurality of portions (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. records, documents) of the first file;
retrieving, via the second space, second data comprising at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the second plurality of portions of the first file retrieving, via the first space, first data comprising at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the first plurality of portions of the first file (e.g. document embedding/embeddings per document - Chen pages 19, 23, 29, 38, 53, 93);;
generating, based on the second data, a second response (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. retrival); and
sending (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. retrival), based on the first natural language query and the second natural language query, the first response to the first client device and the second response to the second client device.
18. With respect to claim 9,
PIERSON further discloses wherein the first natural language query and the second natural language query are substantially similar (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. elastic search, natural language processing), and wherein the first response differs from the second response (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. private space vs. public space).
Chen further discloses wherein the first natural language query and the second natural language query are substantially similar, and wherein the first response differs from the second response (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. Hospital B Vs. Hospital A).
19. With respect to claim 10,
PIERSON further discloses wherein the second space and the first space are associated with at least one of: a same source (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. private space and public space) or a same file connection.
Chen further discloses wherein the second space and the first space are associated with at least one of: a same source (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. Hospitals B & A) or a same file connection.
20. With respect to claim 11,
PIERSON further discloses wherein the first plurality of portions and the second plurality of portions at least partially overlap (PIERSON [0008], [00119] e.g. overlap).
Chen further discloses wherein the first plurality of portions and the second plurality of portions at least partially overlap (Chen page 57 e.g. overlap).
21. Claims 12-13 are same as claims 6-7 and are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
22. With respect to claim 15,
PIERSON further discloses
generate, based on first data, a first response (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. response) to a first natural language query (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. elastic search, natural language processing);
generate, based on second data, a second response (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. response) to a second natural language query (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. elastic search, natural language processing), wherein the first natural language query and the second natural language query are associated with the file; and
send the first response (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. response) to the first client device and the second response (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. response) to the second client device, wherein the first response and the second response are based on the file.
Chen further discloses
retrieve, based on first access rights associated with the first client device, first data comprising at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with a file (e.g. document embedding/embeddings per document - Chen pages 19, 23, 29, 38, 53, 93);
generate, based on first data, a first response (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. retrieval) to a first natural language query (Chen pages 15-16, 29 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. natural-language query);
retrieve, based on second access rights associated with the second client device, second data comprising at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the file (e.g. document embedding/embeddings per document - Chen pages 19, 23, 29, 38, 53, 93);
generate, based on second data, a second response (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. retrieval) to a second natural language query (Chen pages 15-16, 29 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. natural-language query), wherein the first natural language query and the second natural language query are associated with the file (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. records, documents); and
send the first response to the first client device and the second response to the second client device, wherein the first response and the second response are based on the file, and wherein the first response differs from the second response based on the first access rights and the second access rights (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. hospital A restricts B.nurse to only the router and admissions data).
23. With respect to claim 16,
PIERSON further discloses
wherein the first natural language query and the second natural language query are substantially similar (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. elastic search, natural language processing).
Chen further discloses
wherein the first natural language query and the second natural language query are substantially similar (Chen pages 15-16, 29 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. natural-language query).
24. Claims 17-19 are same as claims 10-11 and 5 and are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
25. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PIERSON in view of Chen, and further in view of FAITELSON et al (US 20170220686 A1, hereinafter “FAITELSON”).
26. With respect to claim 4,
PIERSON discloses
receiving, based on a third natural language query from the first client device, a third request for information related to the second space;
determining, based on the first user profile, that the first client device lacks access rights to the second space (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236]).
Chen further discloses
receiving, based on a third natural language query from the first client device, a third request for information related to the second space;
determining, based on the first user profile, that the first client device lacks access rights to the second space (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2).
Although PIERSON and Chen combination substantially teaches the claimed invention, they do not explicitly indicate sending, based on the lack of access rights, a notification to the first client device indicating that the requested information is not accessible.
FAITELSON teaches the limitations by stating sending, based on the lack of access rights, a notification to the first client device indicating that the requested information is not accessible (FAITELSON [0060] – [0061] e.g. [0060] In some embodiments, when and/or responsive to generation or forming of representations of objects that are inaccessible to the party a notification or alert to that effect is presented, optionally accompanied with the number of such representations. Optionally, however, representations of objects that are inaccessible to the party are not presented. [0061] In some embodiments, access right or permission to access objects respective to presentations of objects found in a search that are inaccessible to the party may be requested from respective owners of the objects. For example a request to access an object may be generated by performing an operation on a representation, such as by a right-click by a mouse or a triple click on a touch screen on the representation. Responsively, according to contact data maintained in the computerized system such as computerized system 100, the owner of the object may be notified that access to the party is requested.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, in view of the teachings of PIERSON, Chen and FAITELSON, to provide improved methods and apparatus of profiling people using computers with improved specificity in order to provide improved searching and presentation of data (PIERSON [0006]).
27. Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PIERSON in view of Chen, and further in view of Chauhan et al (US 20220407927 A1, hereinafter “Chauhan”).
28. With respect to claim 7
Although PIERSON and Chen combination substantially teaches the claimed invention, they do not explicitly indicate
generating, based on the first response and the second response, a log of accessed information;
determining, based on the log, usage patterns for the first space and the second space; and
causing, based on the usage patterns, an update to access rights for at least one of the first user profile or the second user profile.
Chauhan teaches the limitations by stating
generating, based on the first response and the second response, a log of accessed information;
determining, based on the log, usage patterns for the first space and the second space; and
causing, based on the usage patterns, an update to access rights (Chauhan [0042], [0080] – [0081] e.g. log; usage patterns; changing access rights to an account associated with the user) for at least one of the first user profile or the second user profile.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, in view of the teachings of PIERSON, Chen and Chauhan, to provide improved methods and apparatus of profiling people using computers with improved specificity in order to provide improved searching and presentation of data (PIERSON [0006]).
29. Claim 14 is same as claim 14 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
30. Claim 20 is same as claim 14 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Response to Argument
31. On pages 7-10, Applicant alleges the present claims, as amended, are not directed to an abstract mental process, but rather to a specific, technical solution for access-controlled knowledge base retrieval and response generation using semantically-indexed representations of data … A. The claims are not directed to a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A)
Examiner disagrees because:
Regarding to claim 1,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 1 recites: A method comprising:
“based on a first natural language query associated with a first client, determining, based on a first user profile associated with the first client, first access rights, wherein the first access rights indicate the first client may access a first space comprising a first plurality of files”. This element reads on a person determines first access rights indicate access a first space comprising a first files based on a natural language query and a first user profile which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“retrieving, via the first space, first data comprising at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the first plurality of files”. This element reads on a person retrieves, via the first space, first data comprising at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the first files which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“generating, based on the first data, a first response to the first natural language query”. This element reads on a person generates, based on the first data, a first response to the first natural language query which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“based on a second natural language query associated with a second client device, determining, based on a second user profile associated with the second client device, second access rights, wherein the second access rights indicate the second client device may access the first space comprising the first plurality of files and a second space comprising a second plurality of files, wherein the first user profile does not indicate access rights to the second space”. This element reads on a person determines second access rights indicate access a second space based on a natural language query and a second user profile, wherein the second access rights indicate the second client device may access the first space comprising the first plurality of files and a second space comprising a second plurality of files, wherein the first user profile does not indicate access rights to the second space which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“retrieving, via the first space and the second space, second data comprising: the at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the first plurality of files, and at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the second plurality of files”. This element reads on a person retrieves, via the first space and the second space, second data comprising: the at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the first plurality of files, and at least one semantically-indexed representation of data associated with the second plurality of files which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“generating, based on the second data, a second response”. This element reads on a person generates, based on the second data, a second response which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“sending, based on the first natural language query and the second natural language query, the first response to the first client and the second response to the second client”. This element reads on a person sends the first response to the first client and the second response to the second client which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
Overall, the limitations directed to send response based on access rights on space and the various mental process limitations in the context of this claim encompasses limitations that are not only considered to be directed to limitations that could be practically performed in the human mind (including observations and preform an evaluation, judgment, and opinion) aided by the use of pen and paper. If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
32. On pages 10-11, Applicant alleges B. The claims are patent-eligible because they recite additional elements beyond the allegedly-recited judicial exception that impose meaningful limits on any application of, reliance on, or use thereof (Prong Two of Step 2A) … As Filed Specification, paragraph [0045]. The amended claims provide a particular solution to this technical problem by reciting access-right-scoped retrieval of semantically-indexed representations of data, followed by response generation based on that retrieved data.
Examiner disagrees because:
There is nothing in the instant applicant’s specification [0045] stated the amended claims provide a particular solution to this technical problem by reciting access-right-scoped retrieval of semantically-indexed representations of data, followed by response generation based on that retrieved data.
33. On pages 10-11, Applicant alleges C The claims are patent-eligible because they recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the allegedly-recited judicial exception, and they show an inventive concept (Step 2B).
Examiner disagrees because:
Step 2B Analysis: In Step 2B, we are directed to Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, The additional element(s) “a device” is simply applying the abstract idea, and there is nothing done with results.
Accordingly, this additional element(s), taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
34. Applicant’s remarks and arguments presented on pages 12-16 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this office action.
35. On page 16, Applicant alleges D. The motivation to combine is not properly supported.
Examiner disagrees because:
In response to applicant's argument that there is no suggestion to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, PIERSON discloses a digital collaboration platform comprising one or more servers and one or more remote devices facilitates learning in enterprises. The platform comprises permeable membrane logic, content learning logic, artificial intelligence logic, mobile communication logic, and social networking logic. The platform increases fluidity in collaborative learning. Chen proposes to leverage federated RAG retrieval for clinical trends inference across distributed medical records while adding authorization security mechanisms during retrieval to guarantee security of patient data. An ordinary skilled person would be motivated to modify PIERSON in view of Chen’s teaching because that would have allowed the platform to provide improved methods and apparatus of profiling people using computers with improved specificity in order to provide improved searching and presentation of data (PIERSON [0006]).
Conclusion
36. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SyLing Yen whose telephone number is 571-270-1306.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at 571-272-4098. The fax and phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2100.
/SYLING YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights