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
The pending claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/30/2025 and 8/24/2026 have been considered by the examiner. Please see attached PTO-1449.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant's claim for priority based on application filed on September 13, 2024 (INDIA 202411069442).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies retrieved under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which propriety documents have not been placed of record in the file.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, it is suggested to have “a memory to store instructions, the instructions is executed by the at least one computer processor”.
Because “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2114.II.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A prong 1), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is integrated into a practical application (step 2A prong 2). If an abstract idea is present in the claim without integration into a practical application, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (step 2B).
Claim 1 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 “A method comprising: receiving, by an LLM-powered search engine, a natural language query from a conversational interface, wherein the conversational interface is a first section of a user interface; generating, by the LLM-powered search engine, a first response comprising a natural language summary, a data payload and an action recommendation; validating the data payload with respect to the action recommendation to obtain a validation result; and responsive to the validation result being an error result, performing operations comprising: generating, by a correction LLM, a correction prompt based on the error result and the first response, processing, by the LLM-powered search engine, the correction prompt to generate a second response, and validating a second data payload of the second response with respect to a second action recommendation of the second response, to obtain a second validation result”. 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. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component 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 “extracting, by a screening tool, from the first response, the data payload; and validating, by the screening tool, the data payload with respect to the action recommendation, wherein the validation comprises: performing a type-specific validation check of the data payload, based on a type of the data payload; wherein the type-specific validation check comprises an image data validation check, a plot data validation check, a database query validation check, and a domain workflow parameter check”. 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. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component 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 “responsive to the data payload of the first response failing a type-specific validation check, generating a type-specific error code, corresponding to the type-specific validation check, wherein the type-specific error code is the error result; and transmitting the type-specific error code, and the data payload to the correction LLM”. 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. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component 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 “generating, by the correction LLM, a prompt including a natural language summary of a type-specific error code, the data payload of the first response, a conversation history comprising a user state and an action state, and an instruction comprising a request to regenerate the response”. 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. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component 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 “iteratively performing: validating the data payload of the first response with respect to the action recommendation of the first response to obtain the validation result; and responsive to the validation result being the error result, performing operations comprising: generating, by the correction LLM, a correction prompt based on the error result and the first response, and processing, by the LLM-powered search engine, the correction prompt to generate a second response; for a pre-defined number of iterations”. 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. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component 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 “responsive to the pre-defined number of iterations being performed, and the validation result being the error result, generating an error response; and displaying the error response in the conversational 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. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component 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 “responsive to the validation result being a success result, performing operations comprising: displaying the natural language summary of the first response in the conversational interface, wherein the natural language summary of the first response includes a reference to the action recommendation of the first response, wherein the action recommendation comprises a workflow action, and monitoring the conversational interface to detect a selection of the reference”. 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. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component 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 “receiving, from the conversational interface, the selection of the reference; identifying a workflow type of the action recommendation of the first response; invoking a workflow tool to perform a workflow corresponding to the workflow type, using the data payload of the first response to obtain an output of the workflow tool; displaying a second reference to the output of the workflow tool in the conversational interface; and monitoring the user interface to detect a selection of the second reference”. 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. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component 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. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “responsive to the validation result being a success result, performing operations comprising: displaying the natural language summary in the conversational interface, wherein the natural language summary includes a reference to a data element of the data payload of the first response, and monitoring the user interface to detect a selection of the reference”. 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. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component 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 “receiving, from the user interface, a selection of a reference to a data element of the data payload of the first response, wherein the reference is included in the natural language summary; identifying a viewer type corresponding to the data element; invoking a viewing tool corresponding to the viewer type to generate a visualization of the data element; rendering, by the viewing tool, the visualization in a first viewer section of the user interface; and monitoring the first viewer section of the user interface for user interactions to detect a second selection of a second data element”. 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. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component 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 “identifying a nested data element, wherein the nested data element is included in the data element; and generating the visualization of the data element, wherein the visualization further comprises a nested reference to the nested data element”. 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. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component 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. The claim recites “A system, comprising: at least one computer processor; a user application, executing on the at least one computer processor; a correction LLM, executing on the at least one computer processor; and an LLM-powered search engine, executing on the at least one computer processor and configured for: receiving a natural language query from a conversational interface, wherein the conversational interface is a first section of a user interface of the user application, and generating a first response comprising a natural language summary, a data payload and an action recommendation; and wherein the user application is configured for: validating, by a screening tool of the user application, the data payload with respect to the action recommendation to obtain a validation result, and responsive to the validation result being an error result, performing operations comprising: obtaining, from the correction LLM, a correction prompt based on the error result and the first response, obtaining a second response, generated by the LLM-powered search engine processing the correction prompt, and validating, by the screening tool, a second data payload of the second response with respect to a second action recommendation of the second response, to obtain a second validation result”.
The limitations of “A summary, a data payload and an action recommendation; and wherein the user application is configured for: validating, by a screening tool of the user application, the data payload with respect to the action recommendation to obtain a validation result, and responsive to the validation result being an error result, performing operations comprising: obtaining, from the correction LLM, a correction prompt based on the error result and the first response, obtaining a second response, generated by the LLM-powered search engine processing the correction prompt, and validating, by the screening tool, a second data payload of the second response with respect to a second action recommendation of the second response, to obtain a second validation result”, 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. 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 “system” and “at least one computer processor” to perform the claimed steps. The “system” and “at least one computer processor” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “system” and “at least one computer processor” to perform the claimed steps. The “system” and “at least one computer processor”, performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 “extracting, by the screening tool, from the first response, the data payload; and validating, by the screening tool, the data payload with respect to the action recommendation, wherein the validation comprises: performing a type-specific validation check of the data payload, based on a type of the data payload, wherein the type-specific validation check comprises an image data validation check, a plot data validation check, a database query validation check, and a domain workflow parameter check; responsive to the data payload of the first response failing the type-specific validation check, generating a type-specific error code, corresponding to the type-specific validation check, wherein the type-specific error code is the error result; and transmitting the type-specific error code, and the data payload to the correction LLM”. 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. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component 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 “generating, by the correction LLM, a prompt including a natural language summary of a type-specific error code, the data payload of the first response, a conversation history comprising a user state and an action state, and an instruction comprising a request to regenerate the response”. 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. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component 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 “validating, by the screening tool, the data payload of the first response with respect to the action recommendation of the first response to obtain the validation result; and responsive to the validation result being the error result, performing operations comprising: generating, by the correction LLM, a correction prompt based on the error result and the first response, and processing, by the LLM-powered search engine, the correction prompt to generate a second response; for a pre-defined number of iterations; and responsive to the pre-defined number of iterations being performed, and the validation result being the error result, generating an error response; and displaying the error response in the conversational 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. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component 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 “responsive to the validation result being a success result, performing operations comprising: displaying, the natural language summary of the first response in the conversational interface, wherein the natural language summary of the first response includes a reference to the action recommendation of the first response, and wherein the action recommendation comprises a workflow action, monitoring the conversational interface to detect a selection of the reference, receiving, by a workflow coordinator, from the conversational interface, the selection of the reference, identifying, by the workflow coordinator, a workflow type of the action recommendation of the first response, invoking, by the workflow coordinator, a workflow tool to perform a workflow corresponding to the workflow type, using the data payload of the first response, to obtain an output of the workflow tool, displaying a second reference to the output of the workflow tool in the conversational interface, and monitoring the user interface to detect a selection of the second reference”. 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. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component 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. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “responsive to the validation result being a success result, performing operations comprising: displaying the natural language summary in the conversational interface, wherein the natural language summary includes a reference to a data element of the data payload of the first response, and monitoring the user interface to detect a selection of the reference”. 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. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component 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 “receiving, by a view coordinator, from the user interface, a selection of a reference to a data element of the data payload of the first response, wherein the reference is included in the natural language summary; identifying, by the view coordinator, a viewer type corresponding to the data element; invoking, by the view coordinator, a viewing tool corresponding to the viewer type to generate a visualization of the data element; rendering, by the viewing tool, the visualization in a first viewer section of the user interface; and monitoring the first viewer section of the user interface for user interactions to detect a second selection of a second data element”. 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. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component 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 “identifying, by the view coordinator, a nested data element, wherein the nested data element is included in the data element; and generating, by the viewing tool, the visualization of the data element, wherein the visualization further comprises a nested reference to the nested data element”. 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. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component 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. The claim recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one computer processor, cause the at least one computer processor to perform operations comprising: receiving, by an LLM-powered search engine, a natural language query from a conversational interface, wherein the conversational interface is a first section of a user interface; generating, by the LLM-powered search engine, a first response comprising a natural language summary, a data payload and an action recommendation; validating the data payload with respect to the action recommendation to obtain a validation result; and responsive to the validation result being an error result, performing operations comprising: generating, by a correction LLM, a correction prompt based on the error result and the first response, processing, by the LLM-powered search engine, the correction prompt to generate a second response, and validating a second data payload of the second response with respect to a second action recommendation of the second response, to obtain a second validation result”.
The limitations 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 medium” and “at least one computer processor” to perform the claimed steps. The “A non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “at least one computer processor” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “A non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “at least one computer processor” to perform the claimed steps. The “A non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “at least one computer processor”, performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonio et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2025/0198275) in view of Cai et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 12,099,975).
Referring to claim 1, Antonio et al. teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by an LLM-powered search engine, a natural language query (the received query is a natural language query, see Antonio et al., Para. 88) from a conversational interface (the LLM system 200 includes both an application programming interface (API) for machines, and a natural language interface for humans; it is, therefore, able to suggest modifications in operations and to respond to queries to both controller and site engineers and drillers, see Antonio et al., Para. 45), wherein the conversational interface is a first section of a user interface (the LLM system 200 includes both an application programming interface (API) for machines, and a natural language interface for humans; it is, therefore, able to suggest modifications in operations and to respond to queries to both controller and site engineers and drillers, see Antonio et al., Para. 45);
generating, by the LLM-powered search engine, a first response comprising a natural language summary, a data payload and an action recommendation (the LLM recommendation system analyzes the current drilling operation and suggests changes to the current drilling operation. Outputs may include data sets to be ingested by the LLM, prompts that appropriately categorize the data sets, recommendations, see Antonio et al., Para. 25);
validating the data payload with respect to the action recommendation to obtain a validation result (recommendation feedback system 208 receives feedback on efficacy of the recommendations received by users and by autonomous drilling controller 230 and associates the feedback with the recommendation that was stored in recommendation archives 210. The feedback may be, for instance, a grade for the usefulness of the recommendation, see Antonio et al., Para. 45, the feedback includes one or more of a grade or a snapshot of one or more of the drilling parameters for the selected drilling platform controller after implementing the recommended changes, see Antonio et al., Para. 84); and
generating, by a correction LLM (the feedback may be used to further train LLM 202 in addition to or instead of modifying the operation of prompt generator 202, see Antonio et al., Para. 64), a correction prompt based on the error result and the first response (Prompt generator 202 generates a prompt based on the received data (702) and applies the prompt to LLM 204 (704). The LLM 202 generates a recommendation for one or more changes in operation of the drilling platform controller 130 based on the prompt (706), see Antonio et al., Para. 64),
processing, by the LLM-powered search engine, the correction prompt to generate a second response (the LLM recommendation system analyzes the current drilling operation and suggests changes to the current drilling operation. Outputs may include data sets to be ingested by the LLM, prompts that appropriately categorize the data sets, recommendations, see Antonio et al., Para. 25), and
validating a second data payload of the second response with respect to a second action recommendation of the second response (recommendation feedback system 208 receives feedback on efficacy of the recommendations received by users and by autonomous drilling controller 230 and associates the feedback with the recommendation that was stored in recommendation archives 210. The feedback may be, for instance, a grade for the usefulness of the recommendation, see Antonio et al., Para. 45), to obtain a second validation result (the feedback includes one or more of a grade or a snapshot of one or more of the drilling parameters for the selected drilling platform controller after implementing the recommended changes, see Antonio et al., Para. 84). However, Antonio et al. does not explicitly teach
responsive to the validation result being an error result, performing operations.
Cai et al. teaches
responsive to the validation result being an error result, performing operations (modify the prompt based on the results of the validation to retrain the large language model, see Cai et al., Col. 28, lines 5-7).
However, Cai et al. also teaches an error result (report an error, see Cai et al., Col. 25, line 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Antonio et al., to have responsive to the validation result being an error result, performing operations, an error result, as taught by Cai et al., to have accurately and efficiently identifying error conditions (Cai et al., Para. 45).
Referring to claim 12, Antonio et al. teaches a system, comprising:
at least one computer processor (see Antonio et al., FIG. 4);
a user application, executing on the at least one computer processor;
a correction LLM (a large language model (LLM) system 200, see Antonio et al., Para. 42), executing on the at least one computer processor; and
an LLM-powered search engine (The LLM recommendation system suggests optimal or near optimal operations and may respond to queries, see Antonio et al., Para. 24), executing on the at least one computer processor and configured for, which recites the corresponding limitations as set forth in claim 1 above; therefore, it is rejected under the same subject matter. Referring to claim 20, Antonio et al. teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (see Antonio et al., FIG. 4) storing instructions that, when executed by at least one computer processor (see Antonio et al., FIG. 4), cause the at least one computer processor to perform operations, which recites the corresponding limitations as set forth in claim 1 above; therefore, it is rejected under the same subject matter.
Claims 3, 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonio et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2025/0198275) in view of Cai et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 12,099,975) as applied to claims 1, 12 and 20 above, and in further view of Zaatra (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2025/0148843).
As to claim 3, Antonio et al. as modified teaches responsive to the data payload of the first response failing (a validator may initiate the use of secondary large language models with secondary prompts to resolve invalid responses, see Cai et al., Col. 28, lines 25-27); and transmitting the type-specific error code, and the data payload to the correction LLM (modify the prompt based on the results of the validation to retrain the large language model, see Cai et al., Col. 28, lines 5-7).
However, Cai et al. also teaches a type-specific validation check, generating a type-specific error code, corresponding to the type-specific validation check, wherein the type-specific error code is the error result.
Zaatra teaches a type-specific validation check, generating a type-specific error code (generated error codes, see Zaatra, Para. 114), corresponding to the type-specific validation check, wherein the type-specific error code is the error result (computer devices utilize machine-learning to analyze error codes, see Zaatra, Para. 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Antonio et al. as modified, to have a type-specific validation check, generating a type-specific error code, corresponding to the type-specific validation check, wherein the type-specific error code is the error result, as taught by Zaatra, to accurately predict, detect (Zaatra, Para. 44).
As to claim 4, Antonio et al. as modified teaches generating, by the correction LLM, a prompt (Prompt generator 202 generates a prompt based on the received data (702) and applies the prompt to LLM 204 (704). The LLM 202 generates a recommendation for one or more changes in operation of the drilling platform controller 130 based on the prompt (706), see Antonio et al., Para. 64) including, the data payload of the first response (the LLM recommendation system analyzes the current drilling operation and suggests changes to the current drilling operation. Outputs may include data sets to be ingested by the LLM, prompts that appropriately categorize the data sets, recommendations, see Antonio et al., Para. 25), a conversation history comprising a user state and an action state, and an instruction comprising a request to regenerate the response (The LLM recommendation system suggests optimal or near optimal operations and may respond to queries, see Antonio et al., Para. 24).
However, Antonio et al. as modified does not explicitly teach a natural language summary of a type-specific error code.
Zaatra teaches a natural language summary of a type-specific error code (using natural language processing (NLP) to interpret driver symptomatic descriptions into meaningful data in conjunction with predictive modeling of past symptoms and error codes, see Zaatra, Para. 47)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Antonio et al. as modified, to have a natural language summary of a type-specific error code, as taught by Zaatra, to accurately predict, detect (Zaatra, Para. 44).
Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 4 rejection.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonio et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2025/0198275) in view of Cai et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 12,099,975) as applied to claims 1, 12 and 20 above, and in further view of Kolambkar et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 20260004243).
As to claim 9, Antonio et al. as modified teaches responsive to the validation result being a success result (approve or confirm reports, see Cai et al., Col. 19, line 9), performing operations comprising: displaying the natural language summary in the conversational interface, wherein the natural language summary (display reports, see Cai et al., Col. 7, line 42),.
However, Antonio et al. as modified does not explicitly teach a reference to a data element of the data payload of the first response, and monitoring the user interface to detect a selection of the reference.
Kolambkar et al. teaches a reference to a data element of the data payload of the first response (generate the links displayed in the interface with the generative response, see Kolambkar et al., Para. 185), and monitoring the user interface to detect a selection of the reference (select a generated link in order to review the source material, see Kolambkar et al., Para. 185).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Antonio et al. as modified, to have a reference to a data element of the data payload of the first response, and monitoring the user interface to detect a selection of the reference, as taught by Kolambkar et al., to in response to user search queries in an efficient an accurate manner (Kolambkar et al., Para. 2).
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 9 rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAU SHYA MENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1634. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAU SHYA MENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
