CTNF 19/272,663 CTNF 81888 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Remarks Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: As per claim 1, line 10: “a second model” should just be “a model” since there is no “first model” described in the claim. Independent claims 9 and 17 are similarly objected to, and dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are objected to based upon their dependency on their respective parent claims . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 5 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites the limitation “the answer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 is similarly rejected. Claim 10 recites the limitation " The computing apparatus" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 11-16 are similarly rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A method for querying database data using natural language, the method being implemented by at least one processor, the method comprising: receiving, by the at least one processor via a user interface, a natural language query to extract domain data from a database; analyzing, by the at least one processor via a public cloud platform, the natural language query to determine a first database associated with the natural language query; generating, by the at least one processor via the public cloud platform and based on a result of the analyzing, a prompt for understanding the first database; transmitting, by the at least one processor, the natural language query and the prompt to a second model that is a large language model (LLM); generating, by the at least one processor via the second model and based on the transmitted natural language query and the prompt, a database-specific query; transmitting, by the at least one processor, the database-specific query to the first database; generating, by the at least one processor via the first database, a response to the natural language query; and transmitting, by the at least one processor, the response to the user interface”. The limitations of “A method for querying database data using natural language, the method being implemented by at least one processor , the method comprising: receiving, by the at least one processor via a user interface, a natural language query to extract domain data from a database ; analyzing, by the at least one processor via a public cloud platform , the natural language query to determine a first database associated with the natural language query; generating, by the at least one processor via the public cloud platform and based on a result of the analyzing, a prompt for understanding the first database; transmitting, by the at least one processor, the natural language query and the prompt to a second model that is a large language model (LLM) ; generating, by the at least one processor via the second model and based on the transmitted natural language query and the prompt, a database-specific query; transmitting, by the at least one processor, the database-specific query to the first database ; generating, by the at least one processor via the first database, a response to the natural language query; and transmitting, by the at least one processor, the response to the user interface ”, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least one processor” and “a public cloud platform”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “at least one processor” and “a public cloud platform” to perform the claimed steps. The “at least one processor” and “public cloud platform” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “at least one processor” and “a public cloud platform” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving, by the at least one processor via a user interface, a natural language query to extract domain data from a database” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also recites the additional element of “via the second model” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also discloses the additional element of “transmitting, by the at least one processor , the natural language query and the prompt to a second model that is a large language model (LLM)”, “transmitting, by the at least one processor , the database-specific query to the first database” and “transmitting, by the at least one processor , the response to the user interface”, and the courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner ( e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). 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 of using “at least one processor” and “a public cloud platform” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving, by the at least one processor via a user interface, a natural language query to extract domain data from a database” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also recites the additional element of “via the second model” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also discloses the additional element of “transmitting, by the at least one processor , the natural language query and the prompt to a second model that is a large language model (LLM)”, “transmitting, by the at least one processor , the database-specific query to the first database” and “transmitting, by the at least one processor , the response to the user interface”, and the courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner ( e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving context information from the first database and using the received context information and the result of the analyzing for the generating of the prompt”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving context information from the first database” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving context information from the first database” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the prompt includes a series of rules and instructions specific to the first database that relate to a language structure required for the generating of the database-specific query”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the public cloud platform has a language model integration framework”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the answer is displayed on the user interface in a natural language format ”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites the additional elements of “the answer is displayed on the user interface in a natural language format” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional elements of “the answer is displayed on the user interface in a natural language format” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the at least one processor, a request to extract data from a document ; analyzing, by the at least one processor via the public cloud platform , the request to determine a first document associated with the request; generating, by the at least one processor via the public cloud platform and based on the analyzing of the request, a first instruction for understanding the first document; transmitting, by the at least one processor, the request and the first instruction to the second model ; extracting, by the at least one processor via the second model and based on the transmitted request and the first instruction, request-specific data from the document; and transmitting, by the at least one processor, the request-specific data to the user interface ”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving, by the at least one processor , a request to extract data from a document” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also recites the additional element of “via the second model” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also discloses the additional element of “transmitting, by the at least one processor , the request and the first instruction to the second model” and “transmitting, by the at least one processor , the request-specific data to the user interface”, and the courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner ( e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving, by the at least one processor , a request to extract data from a document” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also recites the additional element of “via the second model” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also discloses the additional element of “transmitting, by the at least one processor , the request and the first instruction to the second model” and “transmitting, by the at least one processor , the request-specific data to the user interface”, and the courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner ( e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the user interface comprises a chatbot interface”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the public cloud platform is trained using historical natural language query results”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A computing device configured for querying database data using natural language, the computing device comprising: a processor; a memory; and a communication interface coupled to each of the processor and the memory, wherein the processor is configured to: receive, via a user interface, a natural language query to extract domain data from a database; analyze, via a public cloud platform, the natural language query to determine a first database associated with the natural language query; generate, via the public cloud platform and based on a result of the analysis, a prompt for understanding the first database; transmit the natural language query and the prompt to a second model that is a large language model (LLM);generate, via the second model and based on the transmitted natural language query and the prompt, a database-specific query; transmit the database-specific query to the first database; generate, via the first database, a response to the natural language query; and transmit the response to the user interface”. The limitations of “ A computing device configured for querying database data using natural language, the computing device comprising: a processor; a memory; and a communication interface coupled to each of the processor and the memory , wherein the processor is configured to: receive, via a user interface, a natural language query to extract domain data from a database ; analyze, via a public cloud platform , the natural language query to determine a first database associated with the natural language query; generate, via the public cloud platform and based on a result of the analysis, a prompt for understanding the first database; transmit the natural language query and the prompt to a second model that is a large language model (LLM) ; generate, via the second model and based on the transmitted natural language query and the prompt, a database-specific query; transmit the database-specific query to the first database ; generate, via the first database, a response to the natural language query; and transmit the response to the user interface ”, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computing device”, “a processor; a memory; and a communication interface” and “a public cloud platform”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a computing device”, “a processor; a memory; and a communication interface” and “a public cloud platform” to perform the claimed steps. The “computing device”, “processor; a memory; and a communication interface” and “public cloud platform” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a computing device”, “a processor; a memory; and a communication interface” and “a public cloud platform” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receive, via a user interface, a natural language query to extract domain data from a database” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also recites the additional element of “via the second model” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also discloses the additional element of “transmit the natural language query and the prompt to a second model that is a large language model (LLM)”, “transmit the database-specific query to the first database” and “transmit the response to the user interface”, and the courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner ( e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). 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 of using “a computing device”, “a processor; a memory; and a communication interface” and “a public cloud platform” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receive, via a user interface, a natural language query to extract domain data from a database” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also recites the additional element of “via the second model” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also discloses the additional element of “transmit the natural language query and the prompt to a second model that is a large language model (LLM)”, “transmit the database-specific query to the first database” and “transmit the response to the user interface”, and the courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner ( e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “ The computing apparatus of claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive context information from the first database and use the received context information and the result of the analysis for the generating of the prompt”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receive context information from the first database” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receive context information from the first database” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “ The computing apparatus of claim 9, wherein the prompt includes a series of rules and instructions specific to the first database that relate to a language structure required for the generating of the database-specific query”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “ The computing apparatus of claim 9, wherein the public cloud platform has a language model integration framework”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “ The computing apparatus of claim 9, wherein the answer is displayed on the user interface in a natural language format ”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites the additional elements of “the answer is displayed on the user interface in a natural language format” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional elements of “the answer is displayed on the user interface in a natural language format” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “ The computing apparatus of claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a request to extract data from a document ; analyze, via the public cloud platform , the request to determine a first document associated with the request; generate, via the public cloud platform and based on the analysis of the request, a first instruction for understanding the first document; transmit the request and the first instruction to the second model ; extract, via the second model and based on the transmitted request and the first instruction, request-specific data from the document; and transmit the request-specific data to the user interface ”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receive a request to extract data from a document” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also discloses the additional element of “transmit the request and the first instruction to the second model” and “transmit the request-specific data to the user interface”, and the courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner ( e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). The claim also recites the additional element of “via the second model” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receive a request to extract data from a document” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also discloses the additional element of “transmit the request and the first instruction to the second model” and “transmit the request-specific data to the user interface”, and the courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner ( e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). The claim also recites the additional element of “via the second model” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “ The computing apparatus of claim 9, wherein the user interface comprises a chatbot interface”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “ The computing apparatus of claim 9, wherein the public cloud platform is trained using historical natural language query results”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions for querying database data using natural language, the storage medium comprising executable code which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to: receive, via a user interface, a natural language query to extract domain data from a database; analyze, via a public cloud platform, the natural language query to determine a first database associated with the natural language query; generate, via the public cloud platform and based on a result of the analysis, a prompt for understanding the first database; transmit the natural language query and the prompt to a second model that is a large language model (LLM); generate, via the second model and based on the transmitted natural language query and the prompt, a database-specific query; transmit the database-specific query to the first database; generate, via the first database, a response to the natural language query; and transmit the response to the user interface”. The limitations of “ A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions for querying database data using natural language, the storage medium comprising executable code which, when executed by a processor , causes the processor to: receive, via a user interface, a natural language query to extract domain data from a database ; analyze, via a public cloud platform , the natural language query to determine a first database associated with the natural language query; generate, via the public cloud platform and based on a result of the analysis, a prompt for understanding the first database; transmit the natural language query and the prompt to a second model that is a large language model (LLM) ; generate, via the second model and based on the transmitted natural language query and the prompt, a database-specific query; transmit the database-specific query to the first database ; generate, via the first database, a response to the natural language query; and transmit the response to the user interface ”, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “a processor” and “a public cloud platform”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “a processor” and “a public cloud platform” to perform the claimed steps. The “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “processor” and “public cloud platform” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “a processor” and “a public cloud platform” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receive, via a user interface, a natural language query to extract domain data from a database” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also discloses the additional element of “transmit the natural language query and the prompt to a second model that is a large language model (LLM)”, “transmit the database-specific query to the first database” and “transmit the response to the user interface”, and the courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner ( e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). The claim also recites the additional element of “via the second model” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). 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 of using “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “a processor” and “a public cloud platform” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receive, via a user interface, a natural language query to extract domain data from a database” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also discloses the additional element of “transmit the natural language query and the prompt to a second model that is a large language model (LLM)”, “transmit the database-specific query to the first database” and “transmit the response to the user interface”, and the courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner ( e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). The claim also recites the additional element of “via the second model” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “ The storage medium of claim 17, wherein, when executed by the processor , the executable code further causes the processor to: receive context information from the first database and use the received context information and the result of the analysis for the generating of the prompt”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receive context information from the first database” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receive context information from the first database” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “ The storage medium of claim 17, wherein the prompt includes a series of rules and instructions specific to the first database that relate to a language structure required for the generating of the database-specific query”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “ The storage medium of claim 17, wherein the public cloud platform has a language model integration framework”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modelo-Howard et al. (‘ Modelo-Howard ’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20250284683) in view of Subrahmaniam et al. (‘ Subrahmaniam ’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20230082903) . As per claim 1, Modelo-Howard teaches A method for querying database data using natural language, the method being implemented by at least one processor, the method comprising: (see abstract and background) receiving, by the at least one processor via a user interface, a natural language query to extract domain data from a database; (natural language query from a user, paragraph [0015], where the query will ultimately be used to query a database) analyzing, by the at least one processor via a public cloud platform , the natural language query to determine a first database associated with the natural language query; (predicts cybersecurity domain of the natural language query and maps domain, where domains include resource analysis, vulnerability analysis, network analysis, and configuration analysis, and corresponding intents comprise user queries directed at resources, vulnerabilities, networks, and configurations, respectively, and includes domain-specific query language, paragraph [0021]-]0024], where the domain predicted reads on first database) generating, by the at least one processor via the public cloud platform and based on a result of the analyzing, a prompt for understanding the first database; (prompt generator generates initial prompt for LLM that describes grammar for the database query language, paragraph [0015]) transmitting, by the at least one processor, the natural language query and the prompt to a second model that is a large language model (LLM); generating, by the at least one processor via the second model and based on the transmitted natural language query and the prompt, a database-specific query; (LLM instructions to generate a database query according to the grammar as described by the natural language query, paragraph [0015]) transmitting, by the at least one processor, the database-specific query to the first database; generating, by the at least one processor via the first database, a response to the natural language query; and transmitting, by the at least one processor, the response to the user interface. (retrieves relevant data to the initial database query that is communicated to a visualization/summarization module for presentation to the user, paragraph [0019]) Modelo-Howard does not explicitly indicate “via a public cloud platform” and “via the public cloud platform”. However, Subrahmaniam discloses “via a public cloud platform” and “via the public cloud platform” (application service framework deployed on public cloud, paragraph [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Modelo-Howard and Subrahmaniam because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing allocated resources in a cloud environment that are continuously monitored to ensure that a required service level is achieved (see Rappaport , column 1, line 28 through column 2, line 18). This gives the user the advantage of more efficient use of expensive resources. As per claim 2, Modelo-Howard teaches receiving context information from the first database and using the received context information and the result of the analyzing for the generating of the prompt. (using asset/vulnerability metadata, paragraph [0015], where metadata reads on claimed context information from first database) As per claim 3, Modelo-Howard teaches the prompt includes a series of rules and instructions specific to the first database that relate to a language structure required for the generating of the database-specific query. (describes the grammar for the database query language, paragraph [0015]) As per claim 4, Modelo-Howard does not explicitly indicate “the public cloud platform has a language model integration framework”. However, Subrahmaniam discloses “the public cloud platform has a language model integration framework” (application service framework deployed on public cloud includes natural language processing module, paragraph [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Modelo-Howard and Subrahmaniam because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing allocated resources in a cloud environment that are continuously monitored to ensure that a required service level is achieved (see Rappaport , column 1, line 28 through column 2, line 18). This gives the user the advantage of more efficient use of expensive resources. As per claim 5, Modelo-Howard teaches the answer is displayed on the user interface in a natural language format. (visualization/summarization module for presentation to the user, paragraph [0019], see also figure 3, #320, where the summary is in a natural language format). As per claim 7, Modelo-Howard teaches the user interface comprises a chatbot interface. (paragraph [0058]) As per claims 9-13 and 15, These claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claims 1-5 and 7, respectively, and are similarly rejected. As per claims 17-20, These claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claims 1-4 and are similarly rejected . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modelo-Howard et al. (‘ Modelo-Howard ’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20250284683) in view of Subrahmaniam et al. (‘ Subrahmaniam ’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20230082903) and further in view of WEBER et al. (‘ WEBER ’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20250036673) . As per claim 6, Modelo-Howard teaches receiving, by the at least one processor, a request to extract data from a document ; analyzing, by the at least one processor via the public cloud platform , the request to determine a first document associated with the request; (predicts cybersecurity domain of the natural language query and maps domain, where domains include resource analysis, vulnerability analysis, network analysis, and configuration analysis, and corresponding intents comprise user queries directed at resources, vulnerabilities, networks, and configurations, respectively, and includes domain-specific query language, paragraph [0021]-]0024], where the domain predicted reads on first database) generating, by the at least one processor via the public cloud platform and based on the analyzing of the request, a first instruction for understanding the first document ; (prompt generator generates initial prompt for LLM that describes grammar for the database query language, paragraph [0015]) transmitting, by the at least one processor, the request and the first instruction to the second model; extracting, by the at least one processor via the second model and based on the transmitted request and the first instruction, request-specific data from the document ; (LLM instructions to generate a database query according to the grammar as described by the natural language query, paragraph [0015]) and transmitting, by the at least one processor, the request-specific data to the user interface. (retrieves relevant data to the initial database query that is communicated to a visualization/summarization module for presentation to the user, paragraph [0019]) Modelo-Howard does not explicitly indicate “via the public cloud platform”. However, Subrahmaniam discloses “via the public cloud platform” (application service framework deployed on public cloud includes natural language processing module, paragraph [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Modelo-Howard and Subrahmaniam because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing allocated resources in a cloud environment that are continuously monitored to ensure that a required service level is achieved (see Rappaport , column 1, line 28 through column 2, line 18). This gives the user the advantage of more efficient use of expensive resources. Neither Modelo-Howard nor Subrahmaniam explicitly indicate “receiving, by the at least one processor, a request to extract data from a document”, “a first document”, “the first document”, “from the document”. However, WEBER discloses “receiving, by the at least one processor, a request to extract data from a document”, “a first document”, “the first document”, “from the document” (derive information from document set, paragraph [0069], where document set may be a document). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Modelo-Howard , Subrahmaniam and WEBER because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing an LLM that derives new content from a specific document set in a legal or professional field that is contextually relevant to a query request in order to provide better query results (see WEBER, paragraphs [0005]-[0006]). This gives the user the advantage of more efficient use of expensive resources. As per claim 14, This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 6 and is similarly rejected . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modelo-Howard et al. (‘ Modelo-Howard ’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20250284683) in view of Subrahmaniam et al. (‘ Subrahmaniam ’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20230082903) and further in view of Lisuk et al. (‘ Lisuk ’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20240386060) . As per claim 8, Modelo-Howard does not explicitly indicate “the public cloud platform”. However, Subrahmaniam discloses “the public cloud platform” (application service framework deployed on public cloud includes natural language processing module, paragraph [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Modelo-Howard and Subrahmaniam because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing allocated resources in a cloud environment that are continuously monitored to ensure that a required service level is achieved (see Rappaport , column 1, line 28 through column 2, line 18). This gives the user the advantage of more efficient use of expensive resources. Neither Modelo-Howard nor Subrahmaniam explicitly indicate “is trained using historical natural language query results”. However, Lisuk discloses “is trained using historical natural language query results” (claim 28) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Modelo-Howard , Subrahmaniam and Lisuk because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by leveraging existing results to ensure the accuracy of results from an LLM or other machine-learning models. This gives the user the advantage of more appropriate search results. As per claim 16, This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 8 and is similarly rejected. Conclusion 07-101 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /JAY A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 2 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 3 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 4 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 5 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 6 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 7 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 8 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 9 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 10 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 11 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 12 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 13 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 14 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 15 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 16 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 17 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 18 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 19 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 20 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 21 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 22 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 23 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 24 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 25 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 26 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 27 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 28 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 29 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 30 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 31 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 32 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 33 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 34 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 35 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 36 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 37 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 38 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 39 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 40 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 41 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 43 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/272,663 Page 44 Art Unit: 2151
Prosecution Insights