DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the application filed 10/23/2025.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-15, independent claim 1 is directed, in part, to an artificial intelligence decision support system.
Step 1 – Claims 1-15 fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claims 1-15 are directed to a system (i.e. machine). However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process which includes observations or evaluations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to an artificial intelligence decision support system…that stores a plurality of reference vector data associated with a plurality of structured reference data; …accessing the data warehouse,…performing the following operations: under a condition where a client-end electronic device is communicatively connected to the host device, transmitting a user interface configuration data to the client-end electronic device, such that the client-end electronic device controls a corresponding client-end display to show a user operation interface; upon the user operation interface being operated to input at least one first user-provided natural language content and/or upload at least one first user-provided unstructured data, activating the semantic embedding vector generation module to convert the first user-provided natural language content and/or the first user-provided unstructured data into a first semantic embedding vector; activating the large language model module to perform semantic recognition and intent parsing on the first semantic embedding vector, thereby obtaining at least one first task objective; activating at least one of the domain-oriented task logic modules corresponding to the at least one first task objective, such that each of the domain-oriented task logic modules performs a first domain-oriented decision generation operation, wherein the first domain-oriented decision generation operation includes: based on the first semantic embedding vector, retrieving from the data warehouse at least one reference vector data that includes at least one of the structured reference data; and based on the first task objective and the retrieved at least one reference vector data that includes at least one of the structured reference data, generating a first retrieval-augmented data and transmitting the same to the large language model module; activating the large language model module to generate, based on the first retrieval-augmented data, a first natural language specification and/or a first visualization specification; and transmitting a user interface update data comprising the first natural language specification and/or the first visualization specification to the client-end electronic device, such that the user operation interface displays the first natural language specification and/or the first visualization specification; wherein the first visualization specification includes at least one type selected from a group consisting of table, bar chart, column chart, line chart, area chart, scatter chart, pie chart, curve chart, doughnut chart, radar chart, trend chart, distribution plot, bubble chart, stock chart, flow diagram, relation diagram, waterfall chart, histogram, box & whisker chart, pivot chart, and dashboard view. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Although the claim recites a detailed combination of additional elements including a computer system, electronic device, a data warehouse, host device, processor, storage device, application program comprising a semantic embedding vector generation module, task logic modules, large language model module, user interface, display, user operation interface, natural language content, these additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 1 and 2 and related text and [0017-0023]; [0034-0035] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that
“In one embodiment, the customer-end electronic device is configured to provide the customer-provided natural language content and/or the customer-provided unstructured data to the host device through a data transmission channel, wherein the data transmission channel is selected from a group consisting of customer service application, instant messaging application, corporate web platform, and email transmission system. In one embodiment, each of the client-end electronic device and the customer-end electronic device is selected from a group consisting of desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet computer, all-in-one computer, and smartphone. In one embodiment, the electronic device is selected from a group consisting of local storage device, cloud storage device, and data center, and further includes a first application program interface (API). In one embodiment, the host device is selected from a group consisting of AI computing platform, server, cloud computing device, and edge computing device. In one embodiment, the storage device is selected from the group consisting of a hard disk drive (HDD), a flash memory, and a solid-state drive (SSD). In one embodiment, the file format of the unstructured data is selected from a group consisting of document file, report file, portable document format (PDF) file, text file, E-mail data file, image file, audio file, video file, event log file, event data file, sensor log file, and configuration file. In one embodiment, the application program further comprises: a user interface configuration module; and a database management module; wherein, when executing the application program, the processor activates the user interface configuration module to generate the user interface configuration data, and activates the database management module to manage the data warehouse. Furthermore, FIG. 2 is a block diagram of the host device 12 shown in FIG. 1. As illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2, the host device 12 is communicatively connected to the electronic device 11 to access and manage the data warehouse 111, and includes a processor 121 and a storage device 122. In a feasible embodiment, the host device 12 may be, but is not limited to, an AI computing platform, a server, a cloud computing device, or an edge computing device, such as the NeMo platform sold by Nvidia. On the other hand, the storage device 122 may be, but is not limited to, a hard disk drive (HDD), a solid-state drive (SSD), or a flash memory. Specifically, the storage device 122 stores an application program, which includes a user interface configuration module 1221, a semantic embedding vector (SEV) generation module 1222, a plurality of domain-oriented task logic modules 1223, a large language model module 1224, a database management module 1225, and a user account management module 1226. The processor 121, upon executing the application program, is thereby configured to perform various functions. It should be noted that FIG. 2 schematically illustrates only two domain-oriented task logic modules 1223 to conceptually represent that the module may serve as an abstract structure for multiple independent domain-specific AI agents. In practical implementation, as shown in FIG. 3B, the system may include multiple domain-oriented task logic modules 1223, such as “Parameter Design Copilot,” “Industry Standards,” “Machine Operation,” “Machine Troubleshooting,” and “Customer Complaint and Anomaly Reporting.” Each of these modules is capable of performing corresponding decision generation logic and retrieval-augmented operations based on different task objectives and semantic vector data, thereby supporting various manufacturing management decision-making scenarios.” Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. Regarding the use of Natural Language Processing to evaluate the received data, the Examiner notes that this activity is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See, e.g., Morsa, US 2006/0085408 (paragraph 0144: well -known-to-the-arts natural language processing (NLP) (computational linguistics) or some other method as is well known to the arts may be used). See also, Szabo, US Pat. No. 5,966,126 (col. 6, lines 57-62 and col. 28, lines 16-19: e.g., definitions may be produced in known manner, such as by explicit definition, or through use of assistive technologies, such as natural language translators; user defines a search using prior known techniques, such as natural language searching).
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are allowable over prior art but have other pending rejections as indicated above. Although the prior art made of record discloses systems and methods to implement artificial intelligence systems for resource management and decision support by using large language models and parsing data, the prior art does not specifically disclose the sequence of steps as recited in the claims.
The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights