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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“user interface” in claim 30.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“The method of Claim 1, in which the AI system injects a structured correction from the policy or moderation service as augmented context for the LLM-based system” is fairly clearly supposed to be claim 9 but is not actually numbered as claim 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per Claim 1 (and similarly claims 29-30):
The original Specification (i.e. the original Specification of Parent Application 18/301,615, hereafter original Specification, where this application is a continuation, and not a continuation-in-part) does not have written description for (i) the AI system passes one or more reasoning passages, explanations, history or results, in a structured, machine-readable representation distinct from natural language, to a policy or moderation service, separate from the LLM-based system; and (ii) the policy or moderation service uses the reasoning passages, explanations, history or results to refuse, redact or rephrase LLM outputs (The original Specification appears to only describe reasoning passages which can be “a bit of UL” or “are represented in UL”, and “Here, the explanation is given in full. Various examples may summarise the explanation or provide an explanation with only the most salient reasoning steps included” and “INFO Brian—Explanation” [i.e. only a single explanation] and does not appear to describe where reasoning passages/explanations/history/results are used to refuse/redact/rephrase LLM outputs [the original Specification describes rephrasing but does not appear to describe where the rephrasing is based on reasoning data of any kind])
It is also not clear where the original Specification supports claims 2-4, 6-25, and 28 (for claim 28, especially the “programming assistant”, “content creation”, “data analytics”, “legal research”, “education”, “travel”, and “security” applications/services).
The dependent claims include the issues of their respective parent claims.
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 1-30 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.
As per Claim 1 (and similarly claims 29-30):
“one or more reasoning passages, explanations, history or results” in lines 6-7 of claim 1 (and similarly “the reasoning passages, explanations, history, or results” in the last 2 lines of claim 1) is unclear because it is not clear if “reasoning” refers to only a characteristic of “passages” (i.e. explanations, history, or results don’t need to be reasoning step explanations, reasoning step history, or reasoning step results, and “one or more” refers only to “reasoning step passages” whereas “explanations” and “results” are necessarily plural) or if “reasoning step” is supposed to be a characteristic of all of “passages”, “explanations”, “history”, and “results” (i.e. “one or more reasoning step passages, explanations, history or results” in lines 5-6 of claim 1 actually refers to one or more reasoning step passages, one or more reasoning step explanations, one or more reasoning step histor[ies?], or one or more reasoning step results).
For the purposes of prior art analysis, the examiner has interpreted “one or more reasoning passages, explanations, history or results represented in a machine-readable language distinct from natural-language text” in lines 6-7 of claim 1 as referring to “one or more reasoning passages, one or more reasoning explanations, one or more reasoning histor[ies?], or one or more reasoning results” (since it seems probable that Applicant meant for “one or more” to refer to explanations and results and not just to passages, and in order for “one or more” to apply to explanations, history, or results, then “reasoning” must also grammatically refer to explanations, history, or results, and because “explanations”, “history”, and “results”, without being “reasoning explanations/history/results”, do not seem to have much value in defining subject matter that distinguishes the claims from the prior art).
“the reasoning passages, explanations, history, or results” in the last 2 lines of claim 1 lack antecedent basis when “one or more reasoning passages, explanations, history, or results” in lines 6-7 of claim 1 refers to only one reasoning passage/explanation/history/result)
Additionally, for claim 30:
“the output of the LLM-based system to that prompt” in the last 2 lines of claim 30 lacks antecedent basis (line 3 of claim 30 recites “a response” which is not necessarily a response to “[the] prompt”, and the 4th to last line of claim 30 recites “LLM ouptuts” which are not necessarily outputs of the LLM-based system and which are not necessarily outputs “to that prompt”).
As per Claim 2 (and similarly claim 3):
“the machine-readable reasoning passages, explanations, history or results” in lines 2-3 of claim 2 has the same issue as “one or more reasoning passages, explanations, history or results” in lines 6-7 of claim 1 (discussed above in the 112[b] rejection of claim 1) and is interpreted in the same way for prior art analysis purposes.
As per Claim 6:
“the input” lacks antecedent basis.
As per Claim 8:
“the policy decision” lacks antecedent basis.
As per Claim 22:
“the response” lacks antecedent basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per Claim(s) 1 (and similarly claim[s] 29-30, and consequently claim[s] 2-28 which depend on claim[s] 1), the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the combination of all limitations in claim(s) 1, including (i.e. in combination with the remaining limitations in claim[s] 1) A computer implemented method of improving the accuracy or reliability of an AI system including a LLM (large language model) based system, in which the LLM-based system is a deep learning model capable of processing natural language and the AI system is capable of generating a sequence of reasoning steps; and in which: (i) the AI system passes one or more reasoning passages, explanations, history or results, in a structured, machine-readable representation distinct from natural language, to a policy or moderation service, separate from the LLM-based system; and (ii) the policy or moderation service uses the reasoning passages, explanations, history or results to refuse, redact or rephrase LLM outputs.
12099975 (LATE filing date) teaches “Also, in some embodiments, learner platforms may be arranged to employ one or more evaluation models configured to evaluate responses using heuristics, machine-learning classifiers, NLP, or the like, to automatically approve or reject responses generated by LLMs or the prompt engine”. This reference does not qualify as prior art.
12190416 (LATE filing date) teaches “If the LLM identifies a pattern at 130, then the LLM response containing the set of patterns is sanitized and post-processed for the next stage of the process at 140. For example, if the LLM output contains a hallucination like a pattern that hasn't been defined, the pattern can be discarded (sanitization). In some implementations, the sanitized LLM output is then fitted into a new format and stored as a JSON object as part of the post-processing, which ensure the frontend application (e.g., user compute device 440) gets a valid response from the backend (e.g., graph compute device 400)”. This reference does not qualify as prior art. 2025/0103801 (LATE filing date) teaches “Furthermore, in one or more embodiments, the XM input processing system 102 provides an option to add a step in the workflow editor 600 for sanitizing a model output from a large language model. For instance, the XM input processing system 102 provides an option to add a step for security precautions such as checking a model output for a SQL injection or other type of malicious data. In doing so, the XM input processing system 102 prevents bad actors from injecting malicious code via the large language model to the respondent device” (paragraph 97). This reference does not qualify as prior art.
Double Patenting
For clarity of the record, NO Double Patenting rejections are required between the claims of this application and the claims of the Parent/Sibling applications because the claims of the Parent/Sibling application do not teach or suggest (i) the AI system passes one or more reasoning passages, explanations, history or results, in a structured, machine-readable representation distinct from natural language, to a policy or moderation service, separate from the LLM-based system; and (ii) the policy or moderation service uses the reasoning passages, explanations, history or results to refuse, redact or rephrase LLM outputs (Claim 1-3 of US Patent 11,989,527 recites where reasoning steps are used by a processing system to verify an output, where the verified output is part of second data provided to the LLM to generate improved first output, and where the second input data is a correction and/or a change of continuation text output generated by the LLM, but does not teach or suggest reasoning passages/explanations/history/results being passed by the AI system to a policy/moderation service, and where the policy/moderation service uses the reasoning passages/explanations/history/results to refuse/redact/rephrase LLM outputs [corrections/changes are not inherently rephrasing/redacting/refusing, such as spelling corrections or incorrect words being replaced by correct words, or replacing inaccurate information with accurate information]; Claims 1, 2, and 4 of US Patent 12,067,362 similarly do not teach or suggest reasoning passages/explanations/history/results being passed by the AI system to a policy/moderation service, and where the policy/moderation service uses the reasoning passages/explanations/history/results to refuse/redact/rephrase LLM outputs [bias reduction can involve changing content entirely, and not just rephrasing content to sound less biased, and replacing inaccuracies/consistencies with accurate information similarly can involve changing content entirely]; Claims 1 and 8 of Application 19/389,287 describe using policy checks to refuse, redact, or rephrase content, but not where reasoning passages/explanations/history/results are used to refuse/redact/rephrase LLM outputs)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4249. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM -8:30PM 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, RICHEMOND DORVIL can be reached at (571)272-7602. 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.
EY 7/8/2026
/ERIC YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights