DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application claims priority to provisional application 63/703,733 filed 4 October 2024.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “20” has been used to designate both server computer (Fig 1) and LLM computer (Fig 1). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “10” has been used to designate both client computer (Fig 1) and prompt guard (Fig 3). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “110” has been used to designate both output (Fig 5) and LLM (Fig 5). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “50” has been used to designate both user (Fig 3) and IN/input (Fig 6). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: item 26 (Fig 3); item 52 (Fig 6); and item 124 (Fig 6). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 13, 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 and 19 use the acronym AI without first defining the term.
Claim 13 has an extra comma.
Claim 20 fails to end in a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 6 and 16 each recite “the query is an SQL query.” Each of the independent claims recite a query and a database query. It appears that dependent claims should recite “the database query is an SQL query.” According to the specification, the “query” is a raw query in natural language and the “database query” is in SQL. For examination purposes, the Examiner is interpreting the query claimed in claims 6 and 16 as being the “database query.”
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Due to the preamble, it is unclear whether claim 20 is drawn to just an element of claim 1 or to all of the method of claim 1 with further limitations on the server and method from claim 1. A solution would be to recite “The method of claim 1 …,” however dependent claim 10 already states the limitation in that manner. Therefore, it appears that the claim should be dependent on the server of claim 11 instead of the claim 1. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the claim will be treated as being dependent on claim 11.
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. Determining whether claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 involves a two-step analysis. Step 1 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to the statutory categories of invention. Step 2 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2 is divided into two prongs, with the first prong having a part 1 and part 2. See MPEP 2106.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising: receiving, by a server computer from a client computer, a query relating to stored records stored in a database, the query being from a user; determining, by the server computer and using a large language model, a query structure from the query; determining, by the server computer, features useful to answering the query; generating, by the server computer, a database query using at least the query structure and the features; retrieving, by the server computer, data from the database using the database query; and outputting, the server computer to the client computer, an answer to the query.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations of determining a query structure from the query; determining features useful to answering the query; generating a database query using at least the query structure and the features; retrieving data from the database using the database query, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) except for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, these limitations depict a person determining a query structure, determining features such as tables required to answer the query, generating a query, then looking at a table using the query and retrieving an answer. If limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind except 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.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of a server computer, a client computer and a large language model. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer function of receiving, determining, generating, retrieving and outputting) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional elements of receiving, by a server computer from a client computer, a query relating to stored records stored in a database, the query being from a user and outputting, the server computer to the client computer, an answer to the query. These elements are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the elements are receiving and outputting data. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements of a server computer, a client computer and a large language model. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer function of receiving, determining, generating, retrieving and outputting) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional elements of receiving, by a server computer from a client computer, a query relating to stored records stored in a database, the query being from a user and outputting, the server computer to the client computer, an answer to the query. These elements are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the elements are receiving and outputting data. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA of receiving and outputting data, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites a server computer comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium, the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising code executable by the processor, for performing a method comprising: receiving, from a client computer, a query relating to stored records stored in a database, the query being from a user; determining, using a large language model, a query structure from the query; determining features useful to answering the query; generating a database query using at least the query structure and the features; retrieving data from the database using the database query; and outputting an answer to the query to the client computer.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations of determining a query structure from the query; determining features useful to answering the query; generating a database query using at least the query structure and the features; retrieving data from the database using the database query, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) except for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, these limitations depict a person determining a query structure, determining features such as tables required to answer the query, generating a query, then looking at a table using the query and retrieving an answer. If limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind except 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.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of a processor, a medium, code, a server computer, a client computer and a large language model. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer function of receiving, determining, generating, retrieving and outputting) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional elements of receiving, from a client computer, a query relating to stored records stored in a database, the query being from a user and outputting an answer to the query to the client computer. These elements are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the elements are receiving and outputting data. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements of a processor, a medium, code, a server computer, a client computer and a large language model. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer function of receiving, determining, generating, retrieving and outputting) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional elements of receiving, from a client computer, a query relating to stored records stored in a database, the query being from a user and outputting an answer to the query to the client computer. These elements are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the elements are receiving and outputting data. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA of receiving and outputting data, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 3, 8, 13 and 18 are directed to the abstract idea of “Mental Processes.” The additional limitations of each of the claims are directed to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity which does not provide an inventive concept.
Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 10, 12, 14-17, 19 and 20 are directed to the abstract idea of “Mental Processes.” The additional elements of each of the claims are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity which does not provide an inventive concept.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US PGPub 2026/0056950 to So et al (hereafter So).
Referring to claim 1, So discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a server computer from a client computer, a query relating to stored records stored in a database, the query being from a user (see [0041]; [0075]; [0156]; Fig 2, block 202; Fig 7 – A database query processing method includes receiving a natural language request for information contained within a database. The natural language request from the user is received from the user-authenticated client device in a session between an application and the user. );
determining, by the server computer and using a large language model, a query structure from the query (see [0076]; [0119]; [0121]; [0122] - natural language processing service 414, which may include one or more large language models);
determining, by the server computer, features useful to answering the query (see [0100]);
generating, by the server computer, a database query [native database query] using at least the query structure and the features (see [0091]; [0098] - Then, in block 308B, the database query processing service prompts an LLM with the processed natural language portion using accessible schema, prefixes and/or suffixes, and/or example queries in the prompt. Process 300B concludes when the database query processing service receives native database query content from the LLM in block 310.);
retrieving, by the server computer, data from the database using the database query (see [0210] – The database query processing service causes execution of the generated database query content to retrieve particular data from one or more particular database structures in the database); and
outputting, the server computer to the client computer, an answer to the query (see [0210] – And further prompts a large language model to generate a natural language result explaining the particular data retrieved. The natural language result explaining the particular data retrieved is generated in example block 126 of FIG. 1, and may be provided as part of a natural language response to the query in example block 112 of FIG. 1.).
Referring to claim 2, So discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the server computer comprises query reformulator, and the query structure is a reformulated query produced using the query reformulator (see [0121]).
Referring to claim 3, So discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the stored records are accounting records (see [0024] – Accounting data).
Referring to claim 4, So discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the server computer comprises a query generation layer, and the method further comprises: applying guardrails to query before determining the query structure, the query structure being a reformulated query produced using the query generation layer (see [0099] - The system may parse the natural language request for sensitive values that should not be exposed to the LLM. The system may parse the natural language request for a tuple of a regular expressions corresponding to sensitive values. For example, the system may parse the natural language request for any string of numbers in the regular form “XXX-XXX-XXXX” or a set of two consecutive words with capitalized first letters. These regular expressions correspond to personally identifiable information that should not be exposed to the LLM. When a sensitive value is detected, the value may be stored and replaced by a default value as a placeholder or mask to use in the prompt to the LLM.).
Referring to claim 5, So discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the query generation layer comprises a selector that calls a first LLM (see [0076]; [0119]; [0121]; [0122] - natural language processing service 414, which may include one or more large language models), a generator that calls a second LLM (see [0121] – In block 214, the selected large language model is prompted with the prompt to generate native database query content such as SQL request of the database.), and a validator [validation service] (see [0147] – The prompt response received by the database query processing service may be validated by a validation service. The results of the validation service may determine if the prompt response includes a valid database query.).
Referring to claim 6, So discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the query generation layer is an SQL query generation layer, and the query is an SQL query (see [0004]).
Referring to claim 7, So discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the server computer comprises a feature extractor, and the feature extractor determines the features from the query (see [0100]).
Referring to claim 8, So discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the query structure is a prompt template (see [0119]).
Referring to claim 9, So discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the query structure is determined using one or more Al agents (see [0108]).
Referring to claim 10, So discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the server computer comprises a tool selector, and wherein the method further comprises: selecting, by the tool selector in the server computer, a selected tool, and wherein the database query is further generated using the selected tool (see [0119] – Selecting a profile which selects an LLM to use).
Referring to claim 11, So discloses a server computer comprising:
a processor (see [0026]); and
a non-transitory computer readable medium, the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising code executable by the processor (see [0026]), for performing a method comprising:
receiving, from a client computer, a query relating to stored records stored in a database, the query being from a user (see [0041]; [0075]; [0156]; Fig 2, block 202; Fig 7 – A database query processing method includes receiving a natural language request for information contained within a database. The natural language request from the user is received from the user-authenticated client device in a session between an application and the user. );
determining, using a large language model, a query structure from the query (see [0076]; [0119]; [0121]; [0122] - natural language processing service 414, which may include one or more large language models);
determining features useful to answering the query (see [0100]);
generating a database query [native database query] using at least the query structure and the features (see [0091]; [0098] - Then, in block 308B, the database query processing service prompts an LLM with the processed natural language portion using accessible schema, prefixes and/or suffixes, and/or example queries in the prompt. Process 300B concludes when the database query processing service receives native database query content from the LLM in block 310.);
retrieving data from the database using the database query (see [0210] – The database query processing service causes execution of the generated database query content to retrieve particular data from one or more particular database structures in the database); and
outputting an answer to the query to the client computer (see [0210] – And further prompts a large language model to generate a natural language result explaining the particular data retrieved. The natural language result explaining the particular data retrieved is generated in example block 126 of FIG. 1, and may be provided as part of a natural language response to the query in example block 112 of FIG. 1.).
Referring to claim 12, So discloses the server computer of claim 11, wherein the server computer comprises query reformulator, and the query structure is a reformulated query produced using the query reformulator (see [0121]).
Referring to claim 13, So discloses the server computer of claim 11,, wherein the stored records are accounting records (see [0024] – Accounting data).
Referring to claim 14, So discloses the server computer of claim 11, wherein the server computer comprises a query generation layer, and the method further comprises: applying guardrails to query before determining the query structure, the query structure being a reformulated query produced using the query generation layer (see [0099] - The system may parse the natural language request for sensitive values that should not be exposed to the LLM. The system may parse the natural language request for a tuple of a regular expressions corresponding to sensitive values. For example, the system may parse the natural language request for any string of numbers in the regular form “XXX-XXX-XXXX” or a set of two consecutive words with capitalized first letters. These regular expressions correspond to personally identifiable information that should not be exposed to the LLM. When a sensitive value is detected, the value may be stored and replaced by a default value as a placeholder or mask to use in the prompt to the LLM.).
Referring to claim 15, So discloses the server computer of claim 14, wherein the query generation layer comprises a selector that calls a first LLM (see [0076]; [0119]; [0121]; [0122] - natural language processing service 414, which may include one or more large language models), a generator that calls a second LLM (see [0121] – In block 214, the selected large language model is prompted with the prompt to generate native database query content such as SQL request of the database.), and a validator [validation service] (see [0147] – The prompt response received by the database query processing service may be validated by a validation service. The results of the validation service may determine if the prompt response includes a valid database query.).
Referring to claim 16, So discloses the server computer of claim 15, wherein the query generation layer is an SQL query generation layer, and the query is an SQL query (see [0004]).
Referring to claim 17, So discloses the server computer of claim 11, wherein the server computer comprises a feature extractor, and the feature extractor determines the features from the query (see [0100]).
Referring to claim 18, So discloses the server computer of claim 11, wherein the query structure is a prompt template (see [0119]).
Referring to claim 19, So discloses the server computer of claim 11, wherein the query structure is determined using one or more Al agents (see [0108]).
Referring to claim 20, So discloses the server computer of claim 1 [interpreted as claim 11 due to 112], wherein the server computer comprises a tool selector, and wherein the method further comprises: selecting, by the tool selector in the server computer, a selected tool, and wherein the database query is further generated using the selected tool (see [0119] – Selecting a profile which selects an LLM to use).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No 12,443,595 to Schwag et al teaches the generation of an SQL query from a natural language query and the verification of the SQL query
US PGPub 2025/0358297 to Soliman et al teaches the generation of an SQL query from a natural language query using an LLM
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY LOVEL WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2750. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-270-1760. 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.
/KIMBERLY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights