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 action is response to the communication filed on September 30, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding the claim 1, it recites, receiving a query via a user interface; embedding text of the query into one or more query vectors; comparing the one or more query vectors from the query with one or more document vectors generated from a document; generating a score for the one or more document vectors generated from the document based on a relevance of the one or more document vectors generated from the document to the one or more query vectors from the query; selecting a chunk of the document based on the comparing; constructing a prompt to a large language model including the query and the chunk of the document; receiving a response to the prompt from the large language model; presenting the response on the user interface along with the chunk of the document; and displaying an identifier of the document from which the chunk was selected.
The claim recited the limitation of “comparing the one or more query vectors from the query with one or more document vectors generated from a document; generating a score for the one or more document vectors generated from the document based on a relevance of the one or more document vectors generated from the document to the one or more query vectors from the query; selecting a chunk of the document based on the comparing” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. User can mentally compare query vector data to document vector, generate score for the one or more document and select a chunk of document based on the score. Hence these limitations are mental process.
The claim recited six additional elements: receiving a query …., embedding text of the query …., constructing a prompt …., receiving a response to the prompt …., presenting the response …, and displaying an identifier ….. The receiving steps (receiving a query … and receiving a response to the prompt …) as recited amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362(utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Similarly, the embedding and constructing steps as recited are nothing but data manipulation and processing which are an insignificant extra-solution activity. Further presenting and displaying limitations also insignificant extra-solution activity as these steps directed to data outputting. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim directed to the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element as discussed above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as 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, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of providing answer to a question and a relevant section of a document. The claim recites the limitations of wherein selecting the chunk of the document based on the comparing includes selecting the chunk relating to a document vector with a highest score as being most relevant to the query, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of providing answer to a question and a relevant section of a document. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the user interface is a web browser interface, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of providing answer to a question and a relevant section of a document. The claim recites the limitations of receiving an upload of the document via the user interface, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of providing answer to a question and a relevant section of a document. The claim recites the limitations of parsing the document into text; splitting the text into chunks; and embedding the chunks into respective document vectors to generate the one or more document vectors from the document, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of providing answer to a question and a relevant section of a document. The claim recites the limitations of retrieving the document from a database, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of providing answer to a question and a relevant section of a document. The claim recites the limitations of wherein presenting the response on the user interface along with the chunk of the document includes displaying the response and a selectable link providing access to the chunk of the document, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 7 and includes all the limitations of claim 7. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of providing answer to a question and a relevant section of a document. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the selectable link enables a user to view the chunk of the document to verify that the response is supported by the document, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of providing answer to a question and a relevant section of a document. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the user interface includes a chat log that provides a history of conversation between a user and a chatbot system, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of providing answer to a question and a relevant section of a document. The claim recites the limitations of cleaning an output from the large language model of the prompt to return the response to the query, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
As to claims 11-20, they have similar limitations as claims 1-10 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as claims 1-10 Y above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-8, 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ali et al. (Patent No. : US 12613895 B2).
As to claim 1 Ali teaches a method comprising:
receiving a query via a user interface (Column 10 lines 27-28: receiving, at a query platform, a query text string);
embedding text of the query into one or more query vectors (Column 10 lines 30-31: generates a query vector embedding);
comparing the one or more query vectors from the query with one or more document vectors generated from a document (Column 10 lines 32-35: determining, by the query platform, a document vector embedding, wherein the document vector embedding is above a similarity threshold with respect to the query vector embedding);
generating a score for the one or more document vectors generated from the document based on a relevance of the one or more document vectors generated from the document to the one or more query vectors from the query (Column 6 lines 14-22: the similarity engine may be configured to determine the top N most similar document vector embeddings with respect to a received query vector embedding (e.g., a top-N analysis). A determination of similarity between a query vector embedding and a document vector embedding may be made using a mathematical similarity measurement, such as cosine similarity);
selecting a chunk of the document based on the comparing (Column 10 lines 36-38: retrieving, by the query platform, textual document data related to the document vector embedding. Not that retrieving synonymous with selection);
constructing a prompt to a large language model including the query and the chunk of the document (Column 6 lines 35-43, column 10 line 39-40: access to a generative model platform or engine. A generative model engine may provide access to a generative machine learning model. Exemplary generative machine learning models include large language models (LLMs), such as a generative pretrained transformer (GPT) model, wherein the query text string and the textual document data send to a generative model engine);
receiving a response to the prompt from the large language model (Column 10 lines 42-44: receiving, by the query platform and from the generative model engine, a natural language response to the query text string);
presenting the response on the user interface along with the chunk of the document (Column 10 lines 45-46, Column 6 line 67 to column 7 line 1: receiving, by the query platform and from the generative model engine, a natural language response to the query text string, wherein the the generative model engine configured to receive documents retrieved from a document pool); and
displaying an identifier of the document from which the chunk was selected (Column 10 lines 45-46, column 7 lines 2-4: receiving, by the query platform and from the generative model engine, a natural language response to the query text string, wherein the the generative model may be configured to receive, via an interface, a unique document identifier that is associated with each received document).
As to claim 2 Ali teaches wherein selecting the chunk of the document based on the comparing includes selecting the chunk relating to a document vector with a highest score as being most relevant to the query (Column 6 lines 14-22).
As to claim 3 Ali teaches wherein the user interface is a web browser interface (Column 9 lines 13-14).
As to claim 4 Ali teaches further comprising receiving an upload of the document via the user interface (Column 8 lines 41-43).
As to claim 5 Ali teaches parsing the document into text, splitting the text into chunks, and embedding the chunks into respective document vectors to generate the one or more document vectors from the document (Column 5 lines 20-24).
As to claim 6 Ali teaches retrieving the document from a database (Column 5 lines 55-60).
As to claim 7 Ali teaches wherein presenting the response on the user interface along with the chunk of the document includes displaying the response and a selectable link providing access to the chunk of the document (Column 8 lines 22-28).
As to claim 8 Ali teaches wherein the selectable link enables a user to view the chunk of the document to verify that the response is supported by the document (Column 8 lines 22-28).
As to claims 11-18, they have similar limitations as claims 1-8 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as claims 1-8 above.
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 (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.
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 9-10, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali et al. (Patent No. : US 12613895 B2) in the view of Duan (Pub. No. : US 20140122619 A1)
As to claim 9 all of the limitations of clam 1 have been addressed above. Ali does not explicitly disclose but Duan teaches wherein the user interface includes a chat log that provides a history of conversation between a user and a chatbot system (paragraph [0008]: chatbot systems typically include a chat log that records conversations between users and chatbots during chat sessions). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ali by adding above limitation as taught by Duan to use a chat log interface to modify entries and automatically create scripts allowing the user to modify input/output messages with context (Duan, paragraph [0089]).
As to claim 10 Ali together with Duan teaches a method according to claim 1. Duan teaches cleaning an output from the large language model of the prompt to return the response to the query (paragraph [0137]: chatbot system 108 clears the chat history in the chat box).
As to claims 19-20, they have similar limitations as claims 9-10 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as claims 9-10 Y above.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD I UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MD I UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights