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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites “analyzing at least a schema of a dataset; “receiving…a recommendation of one or more fields for deduplication; causing the LLM to annotate pairs of records from the groups to determine matching records; generating, based on the LLM and the annotated pairs, a classifier for detecting matching records; determining, based on the classifier, groups of matching records; and causing the LLM to merge the groups of matching records into one or more master records.”
The limitations “analyze at least a schema of a dataset; generating, based on the one or more fields, groups of records from the dataset; receiving…a recommendation of one or more fields for deduplication; annotate pairs of records from the groups to determine matching records”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but from the recitation of implementing it on generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “analyze,” “generating,” “annotate,” and “merging” in the context of this claim encompasses a user examining dataset schema to determine fields for deduplicaiton, examining fields of data for determining if there are duplicates; generating groups based on the determination; and annotating record pairs that are determined to be matching records. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations “generating, based on the annotated pairs, a classifier for detecting matching records; determining, based on the classifier, groups of matching records; and merge the groups of matching records into one or more master records”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. For example, “generating” and “determining” represent implementing a classifier algorithm that evaluates input pairs and outputs matches for classification. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance mathematical concepts, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a computing device”, “a large language model (LLM) to analize” and “causing the LLM to merge.” This limitation merely utilizes general purpose computing device and broadly recites as LLM as a tool to implement the discussed mental processes and mathematical algorithms, similar to implementation of abstract idea on a generic computer. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount 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 of “a computing device” and “a large language model (LLM)” is recited at a high level of generality and is operates as a black box to carry out the mathematical algorithms and output results. Claim 1, as a whole, is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements are not sufficient to overcome the essentially mental nature of these claims. Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 8 and claim 15 are similarly rejected as claim 1 above. Claims 8 and 15 additionally recite “receive a dataset for deduplication”. This claim limitation represents mere extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element represents mere data gathering step. 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. The claims 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The other additional element represents insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering that amount to simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry and specified at a high level of generality. According to the courts data gathering steps do not constitute limitations that provide significant steps that amount to more than the judicial exception. Claims 8 and 15, as a whole, is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements are not sufficient to overcome the essentially mental nature of these claims. Accordingly, claims 8 and 15 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 depend on claims 1, 8 ,15 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15. Therefore, claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 recite the same abstract idea practically being performed in the mind, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2, 9, 16 recite the additional limitation “applying a blocking algorithm to the groups of records to construct pairs of records within each group”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim limitation “applying a blocking algorithm to the groups of records to construct pairs of records within each group” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. For example, “applying a blocking algorithm” represents implementing a classifier algorithm that evaluates input pairs and outputs matches for classification. The claim additionally recites “prompting the LLM with a textual description of each pair of records, including field names and values of the records in the pair; receiving, from the LLM, a binary response indicating whether the records in each pair match; and storing the one or more master records in a data store, wherein one or more master records replace duplicate records in the data store.” These limitations represent insignificant extra solution activities of mere data gathering and displaying/storing results. The courts have routinely held that mere data gathering steps and display/output results do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 2, as a whole, is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements are not sufficient to overcome the essentially mental nature of these claims. Accordingly, claim 2 is not patent eligible. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance mathematical concepts, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 2 recites an abstract idea.
Claims 3, 10, 17 “receiving, via a user interface, a validation of the recommended one or more fields”. This claim limitation represents mere extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element represents mere data gathering step. 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. The claims 3, 10, 17 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The other additional element represents insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering that amount to simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry and specified at a high level of generality. According to the courts data gathering steps do not constitute limitations that provide significant steps that amount to more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are not sufficient to overcome the essentially mental nature of these claims. Accordingly, claims 3, 10, 17 are not patent eligible.
Claims 4-5, 11-12, 18-19 recite “applying a blocking algorithm to group records based on similarity of values in the one or more fields” and “training, based on the annotated pairs of records, a machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model comprises the LLM”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent implementing mathematical algorithms. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 4-5, 11-12, 18-19 recite an abstract idea and is ineligible.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent a further mathematical step. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical algorithms, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. An additional abstract idea is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 4-5, 11-12, 18-19 are not patent eligible.
Claims 6-7, 13-14, 20 recite the additional limitation “wherein the LLM comprises the classifier” and “storing the one or more master records in a data store”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception that does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claims merely associate the abstract idea with a particular data source or particular type of data. This limitation is merely an incidental or token additional to the claim that does not alter or affect the mental process steps performed. Claims 6-7, 13-14, 20 are ineligible.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception that does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim merely limits the abstract idea to a particular data source or particular type of data. Claims 6-7, 13-14, 20 are not patent eligible.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to amended claim 1, the recited claim amendments “a large language mode (LLM) to analyze at least a schema of a dataset” and “receiving, from the LLM, a recommendation of one or more fields for deduplication” do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. As disclosed in the corresponding rejection above, “analyze at least a schema of a dataset” and “a recommendation of one or more fields for deduplication, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but from the recitation of implementing it on generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “analyze,” to “recommend” encompasses a user examining dataset schema in order to determine fields for deduplicaiton. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sen et al. 2023/0222290. [0027].
Hiran et al., US 2021/0256002.
Curran et al., US 2025/0117432. [0044].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENSEN HU whose telephone number is (571)270-3803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENSEN HU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights