DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 are pending in the Instant Application.
Claims 1-13 are rejected (Non-Final Rejection).
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 .
Priority
The Instant Application, filed 06/10/2025, which claims foreign priority to 113124434 TW, filed 06/28/2024, has an effective filing date of 6/28/2024 for what is enclosed therein.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) o except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are “an AI selecting unit” and “an access control unit” in claims 1-8.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “an AI selecting unit” and “an access control unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the claims do not recite the term “means,” the presumption against § 112 (f) is overcome because “unit” is a generic placeholder and the claims recite elements by the functions they perform. Therefore, these limitations are construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification. As claims 1-8 recite computer implemented functions, they require that the specification describe an algorithm to perform such functions in order to have structure. Lacking such structure/algorithm, the claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the invention. Since the specification does not include such structure/algorithm, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains 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 or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As noted above, claims 1-8 include limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), but the specification does not include the structure/algorithm to implement the computer functions. Since the specification is missing the required structure, claims 1-8 contains subject matter that fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1, 5 and 9 recite a “device,” and a “system” and therefore describe a machine. Claims 10 recites “A computer command preprocessing method…” followed by a series of steps and thus describes a process. Therefore, the claims are members of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 1, 5, 9 and 10 recite “receiving an input,” and based on evaluation, “selecting” between is “a model operation command or a data access command.” the limitations include or similarly include:
an Al selecting unit, selecting a language model based on a model operation command, to cause the selected language model to execute the model operation command and generate output data; and an access control unit, connected to the data storage unit and the model storage unit, wherein the access control unit receives an input command, and the access control unit determines whether the input command is the model operation command or a data access command;
and if the input command is the model operation command, the access control unit forwards the model operation command to the Al selecting unit, to cause the selected language model to generate the output data, and the access control unit generates a generation result based on the output data; or if the input command is the data access command, the access control unit accesses corresponding file data from the data storage unit based on the data access command.
These limitations describe the acts of evaluation and decision-making that fall into the grouping of mental processes. A human, given commands and rules could conceptually decide if the input is for model operations of data access. Therefore, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the other limitations “a model storage unit,” “storing a plurality of language models;” “a data storage unit,” and “storing a plurality of groups of file data,” amount to using generic computer storage components. It does not require a particular machine in a meaningful way beyond using generic computer storage, and thus is not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The selection of a “model” and the use of a “model” simply applies a machine learning model in a generic manner and also does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, independent claims 1, 5, 9 and 10 recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per dependent claims 2 and 6, the claims recite the AI selecting unit including “a real-time operating system,” which is just a generic computer component performing the mental process. Generic computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per dependent claims 3 and 7, the claims recite the AI selecting unit including “a real-time operating system,” which is just a generic computer component performing the mental process. Generic computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per dependent claim 4 and 8, the claims recite the AI selecting unit including “a real-time operating system,” which is just a generic computer component performing the mental process. Generic computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per claims 11 and 12, the claims recite how the language models are stored. Since this is merely detailing the storage of data, which is merely describing a computer component, the claims do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more since computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per claim 13, claim 13 recites just applying the choice, which is just applying the abstract idea, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being patentable by Gray et al. (“Gray”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 11,769,017.
As per claim 1, Gray discloses an intermediate storage device, comprising:
a model storage unit, storing a plurality of language models ([Col 30, lines 17-29] wherein multiple large language models are described); a data storage unit, storing a plurality of groups of file data ([Col 10, lines 54-62] wherein database results can be stored, wherein groups can be considered each set of results);
an Al selecting unit, selecting a language model based on a model operation command, to cause the selected language model to execute the model operation command and generate output data ([Col 25, lines 52-59] wherein an AI selecting unit (machine learning classifier) selects a generative model performing a model operation commend such as a synthetic image generative model or a creative to create an output); and
an access control unit, connected to the data storage unit and the model storage unit, wherein the access control unit receives an input command ([Col 25, lines 1-3] wherein the query is the input), and the access control unit determines whether the input command is the model operation command or a data access command ([Col 25, lines 65-67]-[Col 26, lines 1-16] wherein the AI selection unit also determines if enough high quality results are found to be a data access command or if a model operation command should be used); and
if the input command is the model operation command, the access control unit forwards the model operation command to the Al selecting unit, to cause the selected language model to generate the output data ([Col 25, lines 18-44] wherein if the input commands considered one that is a model operation, the model generates an output), and
the access control unit generates a generation result based on the output data; or if the input command is the data access command, the access control unit accesses corresponding file data from the data storage unit based on the data access command ([Col 25, lines 65-67]-[Col 26, lines 1-16] wherein the access control unit generates an output corresponding to the results from the data storage). .
As per claim 2, Gray discloses the intermediate storage device according to claim 1, wherein the Al selecting unit further comprises a real-time operating system ([Col 27, lines 59-67] and [Col 28, lines 1-5] wherein the AI selecting unit, recognized as the machine learning classifier, performs real time decision making).
As per claim 3, Gray discloses the intermediate storage device according to claim 1, wherein the access control unit sends the generation result or the selected file data to an upper-layer operating system ([Col 7, lines 41-54] wherein the results are sent to an upper layer operating system).
As per claim 5, Gray discloses an intermediate storage device, comprising:
a plurality of model storage units, wherein each model storage units stores a language model ([Col 6, lines 1-5] wherein at least two language models are described, both of which are stored by themselves in storage units i.e. shards); a data storage unit, storing a plurality of groups of file data ([Col 10, lines 54-62] wherein database results can be stored, wherein groups can be considered sets of search results);
an AI selecting unit, connected to the model storage units, wherein the AI selecting unit selects a language model based on a model operation command, and the language model executes the model operation command and generates output data ([Col 25, lines 52-59] wherein an AI selecting unit (machine learning classifier) selects a generative model performing a model operation commend such as a synthetic image generative model or a creative to create an output); and an access control unit, connected to the data storage unit and the AI selecting unit, wherein the access control unit receives an input command ([Col 25, lines 1-3] wherein the query is the input), and the access control unit determines whether the input command is the model operation command or a data access command ([Col 25, lines 65-67]-[Col 26, lines 1-16] wherein the AI selection unit also determines if enough high quality results are found to be a data access command or if a model operation command should be used); and if the input command is the model operation command, the access control unit forwards the model operation command to the AI selecting unit, to cause the selected language model to generate the output data, and the access control unit generates a generation result based on the output data ([Col 25, lines 18-44] wherein if the input commands considered one that is a model operation, the model generates an output); or if the input command is the data access command, the access control unit accesses corresponding file data from the data storage unit based on the data access command ([Col 25, lines 65-67]-[Col 26, lines 1-16] wherein the access control unit generates an output corresponding to the results from the data storage).
As per claim 6, claim 6 is substantially similar to claim 2 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 7, claim 7 is substantially similar to claim 3 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 9, Gray discloses a computer system, comprising:
a processor ([Col 11, line 4]), configured to execute an upper-layer operating system ([Col 7, lines 41-54] wherein the operating system including upper layer application is executing on the client device), wherein the processor receives an input command through the upper-layer operating system ([Col 7, lines 41-54] wherein the input command is the query received through the upper-layer operating system application); and an intermediate storage device, connected to the processor, wherein the intermediate storage device comprises at least one model storage unit, a data storage unit , an AI selecting unit , and an access control unit ([Fig. 1] and [Col 7, lines 6-15] wherein the listed elements can be one cohesive intermediate storage device as shown); the access control unit is connected to the data storage unit, the AI selecting unit, and each model storage unit ([Fig. 1] and [Col 7, lines 6-15] wherein the listed elements care connected as shown); each model storage unit stores a language model [Col 6, lines 1-5] wherein at least two language models are described, both of which are stored by themselves in storage units i.e. shards); and the data storage unit stores a plurality of groups of file data ([Col 10, lines 54-62] wherein database results can be stored), wherein the upper-layer operating system transmits the input command to the access control unit ([Col 7, lines 41-54] and [Col 9, lines 65-67] wherein an input/query is transmitted from the client application and received), and the access control unit determines whether the input command is a model operation command or a data access command ([Col 25, lines 65-67]-[Col 26, lines 1-16] wherein the AI selection unit also determines if enough high quality results are found to be a data access command or if a model operation command should be used); and if the input command is the model operation command, the access control unit forwards the model operation command to the AI selecting unit, to cause the selected language model to generate output data , and the access control unit generates a generation result based on the output data([Col 25, lines 18-44] wherein if the input commands considered one that is a model operation, the model generates an output); or if the input command is the data access command, the access control unit accesses corresponding file data from the data storage unit based on the data access command ([Col 25, lines 65-67]-[Col 26, lines 1-16] wherein the access control unit generates an output corresponding to the results from the data storage).
As per claim 10, Gray discloses a computer command preprocessing method, comprising:
receiving, by an access control unit of an intermediate storage device, an input command ([Col 9, lines 65-67] wherein an input/query is transmitted from the client application and received),;
determining, by the access control unit, whether the input command is a model operation command or a data access command ([Col 25, lines 65-67]-[Col 26, lines 1-16] wherein the AI selection unit also determines if enough high quality results are found to be a data access command or if a model operation command should be used);
sending, by the access control unit, the model operation command to an AI selecting unit if the input command is the model operation command a([Col 25, lines 18-44] wherein if the input commands considered one that is a model operation, the model generates an output); selecting, by the AI selecting unit, one of a plurality of language models based on the model operation command, wherein the selected language model is a selected model ([Col 25, lines 52-59] wherein an AI selecting unit (machine learning classifier) selects a generative model performing a model operation commend such as a synthetic image generative model or a creative to create an output);
generating, by the selected model, output data based on the model operation command ([Col 25, lines 52-59] wherein an output is generated); and generating, by the access control unit, a generation result based on the output data ([Col 25, lines 65-67]-[Col 26, lines 1-16] wherein the access control unit generates an output corresponding to the results from the data storage).
As per claim 11, Gay discloses the computer command preprocessing method according to claim 10, wherein the step of selecting, by the AI selecting unit, one of a plurality of language models based on the model operation command, wherein the selected language model is the selected model comprises: selecting, by the AI selecting unit, one of a plurality of model storage units, wherein each model storage units stores a corresponding language model ([Col 25, lines 52-59] wherein a model is selected and [Col 6, lines 1-5] wherein at least two language models are described, both of which are stored by themselves in storage units i.e. shards).
As per claim 12 Gray discloses the computer command preprocessing method according to claim 10, wherein the step of selecting, by the AI selecting unit, one of a plurality of language models based on the model operation command, wherein the selected language model is the selected model comprises: storing the language models in a model storage unit ([Fig. 1] wherein LLMs 150 are stored in the same storage unit); and selecting, by the AI selecting unit, one of the language models from the model storage unit ([Col 25, lines 52-59] wherein an AI selecting unit (machine learning classifier) selects a generative model performing a model operation commend such as a synthetic image generative model or a creative to create an output).
As per claim 13, Gray discloses the computer command preprocessing method according to claim 10, wherein if the input command is the data access command, the access control unit accesses corresponding file data from a data storage unit based on the data access command ([Col 25, lines 65-67]-[Col 26, lines 1-16] wherein the access control unit generates an output corresponding to the results from the data storage).
Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Thomas et al. (“Thomas”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0336398.
As per claim 4, Gray discloses the intermediate storage device according to claim 1, further comprising a transmission interface ([Col 7, lines 16-28] wherein a transmission interface connects the client device and the NL based response system), wherein the access control unit is connected to the transmission interface ([Fig. 1] wherein the Search system including files are access across the transmission interface from the client), but does not disclose a type of the transmission interface comprises an advanced technology attachment interface, a serial ATA interface, a universal serial bus, a peripheral component interconnect express interface, or a non-volatile memory express. However, Thomas teaches a type of the transmission interface comprises an advanced technology attachment interface, a serial ATA interface, a universal serial bus, a peripheral component interconnect express interface, or a non-volatile memory express (EXAMINER NOTES of the use of “or” requiring only one of the transmission interfaces, and [0024] wherein a peripheral component interconnect express interface is described). The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. One such rationales is (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. In the instant case, substituting the transmission interface in Gray with the peripheral component interconnect express interface in Thomas and the results would be predictable since the server device in Gray should be able to handle the peripheral component interconnect express interface from Thomas and the interface would not affect how the invention functions.
As per claim 8, claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 4 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM -6:00 PM.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571) 272-4085. 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.
/KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights