Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
This Non-Final Rejection Office Action is in response to Applicant’s filing of 09/10/2025.
Claims 1 – 5 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: incorrect reference to “second user 32” at [0025]. Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation 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 limitation is:
a control unit that causes, outputs, receives, adjusts, assesses, in claims 1 – 4.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of eligibility analysis, the instant claims are directed towards a device; thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories considered appropriate subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of analysis, the claims set forth a method for a user to interact with a device to provide information regarding ‘know-how’ relating to business operations. Know-how refers to knowledge or information the user has about the business and that the user can communicate by verbal, visual, or action-based instructions. Thus, the claims describe users (a first and/or second), interacting, mainly via devices, to teach toward a knowledge base of the organization. This is illustrative of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Interactions between people describe certain methods of organizing human activity, and an abstract idea, Noting that the sub-grouping identified - managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people - encompass both activity of a single person and activity that involves multiple people, certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. The number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. Therefore, the Examiner has determined the claims describe users interacting in order to discuss business operations.
Claim 1 contains those elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A know-how collection device comprising a control unit that
causes a model to generate one or more questions regarding know-how relating to business operations,
outputs the one or more questions to a user,
receives, from the user, input that is one or more replies to the one or more questions, and then assesses an information quantity that is contained in the one or more replies,
adjusts a way in which questions are asked by the model, in accordance with the information quantity that is assessed,
causes the model to generate a next question regarding the know-how, and
outputs the next question to the user.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claim 1 recites only the following additional elements:
A know-how collection device comprising a control unit;
a model.
This device is deemed to be mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described the device generically in the disclosure, at Specification [0012]; namely, “[t]he know-how collection device 20 is a computer such as a server…”. See also Fig 1. Thus, aptly describing “apply it” with a computer. Applicant’s use of a model is defined as “…for example, generative AI such as an LLM or the like,…”. An exemplary LLM is well known in the art for data training using the architecture defined. As noted above, the system employed “…causes a computer to execute the operations of the know-how collection device 20, thereby causing the computer to function as the know-how collection device 20.” This describes mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f), and does not provide for integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea within a computer environment. As discussed above, the additional elements of: (a know-how collection device comprising a control unit, and a model), amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea within a computer environment and cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2 and 3 contain limitations that are further refinements to the same abstract idea found in claim 1. Recitations to assessing the quantity of duplicative information among the plurality of replies are elements directed toward the information regarding ‘know-how’ relating to business operations and the users who offer it up within the interactions. These claims are directed to the abstract idea identified and does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Further, claiming the device of claim 1 is reliance on the computer earlier defined, and does not provide for integration or for significantly. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 4 and 5 contain limitations that are further refinements to the same abstract idea found in claim 1. Recitations to a first and second model and the second user are elements directed toward the information regarding ‘know-how’ relating to business operations and the users who offer it up within the interactions. These claims are directed to the abstract idea identified and does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Further, the models employed describe mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f), and does not provide for integration into a practical application or for significantly more. Similarly, is the component within claim 5.
Therefore, for the reasons cited above, claims 1 – 5 are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without reciting significantly more.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Yanosy (US 2024/0296352).
Regarding claim 1, Yanosy discloses a method for a knowledge framework that teaches an LLM model, (at [0098]), to generate one or more questions regarding know-how relating to business operations; (see [0169] where an inquiry module presents questions to respondents. See [0188] describing business operation metrics and concerns. See also Fig 22 exemplifying taxonomy business functions);
outputs the one or more questions to a user; (see [0029] teaching the system comprises an inquiry module configured to generate questions. See also Fig 6A illustrating an interface presenting a question (‘614));
receives, from the user, input that is one or more replies to the one or more questions; (see [0143] where individuals with various roles in an organization would respond to questions by providing answers, rationale, and evidence commensurate with their role in the organization);
and then assesses an information quantity that is contained in the one or more replies; (see [0167] detailing as assessment module and further suggesting a base scoring module that provides a base score for each response. Furthermore, the scoring module 200 can also include other modules therein to assist in assessing factors that impact scoring. See also [0032] introducing an assessment knowledge module that extracts from the responses relevant answers and rationales);
adjusts a way in which questions are asked by the model, in accordance with the information quantity that is assessed; (see [0018] disclosing a capability to dynamically adjust sessions interactions to focus on relevant topics, aspects, and contexts based on responses in sessions);
causes the model to generate a next question regarding the know-how; (see [0281] disclosing session ontologies to determine the next series of prompt-response patterns);
and outputs the next question to the user; ; (see [0281] disclosing session ontologies to determine the next series of prompt-response patterns).
Regarding claim 5, Yanosy discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above.
Yanosy further discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as the know-how collection device according to claim 1; (see [0037] disclosing this element for development and use of a knowledge framework).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanosy, in view of Bosnjakovic (US 11,875,240).
Regarding claim 2, Yanosy discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above.
Not disclosed is wherein the control unit assesses the information quantity by subtracting duplication with accumulated knowledge, from knowledge that is conveyed in the one or more replies.
However, Bosnjakovic discloses a method for tuning a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model based on a knowledge base, and teaches adjusting the knowledge base based on outliers, by removing certain data from the knowledge base or preventing the tuning module from accessing certain data. See [10:46]. See also [11:45] teaching data is compared and some is removed when not appropriate. Assessing the information is disclosed throughout Bosnjakovic, see evaluations at [17:56].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assess information quantity and subtract duplicates, per the method of Bosnjakovic, within Yanosy’s knowledge framework, because this is a well-known method to fine tune the model used to build the knowledge base (and subsequent questions). Fine tuning the model results in an improved knowledge based focused on integral information. See Bosnjakovic’s discussion of the improvements this process affords at [3:46].
Regarding claim 3, Yanosy discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above.
Not disclosed is wherein the control unit outputs a plurality of questions as or more or more questions, and assesses the information quantity by subtracting duplication among replies from knowledge conveyed in a plurality of replies to the questions obtained as the one or more replies.
However, Bosnjakovic discloses a method for tuning a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model based on a knowledge base, and teaches, first, a natural language processing model may be configured to leverage the knowledge base to automatically generate questions and answers based on the knowledge base, [Abstract]; then, the system may determine data points that remain outliers in terms of associated cost (such as being above a threshold after a defined number of iterations of tuning) and remove the data points from the tuning set. Alternatively, the questions and answers may be manually reviewed and adjusted to be more relevant for tuning. See [10:40].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assess information quantity and subtract duplicates, per the method of Bosnjakovic, within Yanosy’s knowledge framework, because this is a well-known method to fine tune the model used to build the knowledge base (and subsequent questions). Fine tuning the model results in an improved process as detailed at [8:46].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanosy, in view of Walsh (US 2023/0018116).
Regarding claim 4, Yanosy discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above.
Not disclosed is with the model as a first model, provides a second model with the input of the one or more replies, and causes the second model to learn the know-how, with the user as a first user, receives input of a problem related to business operations, from a second user, upon which the control unit provides the input of the problem to the second model, acquires information regarding a solution to the problem, utilizing the know-how from the second model, and outputs the information regarding the solution that is acquired, to the second user.
However, Walsh discloses a method for synthesizing cross domain collective intelligence (a first and second knowledge base), and teaches, first and second sets of knowledge, trained on respective first and second models, available to first and second users, see [0014]. Next, see [0068] describing the distributed devices (users) and plural databases, at [0074].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a first and second model for a first and second user, per the method of Walsh, within Yanosy’s knowledge framework, because this results in a collaborative knowledge system based on the two separate knowledge bases; strengthening both users’ knowledge database.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Garg discloses a conversational knowledge base. Gilger details a method for knowledge curation. Lee discusses a method for presenting a topic to be learned. Venkatasubramanyam discloses a smart-learning and knowledge retrieval system with integrated chatbots.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights