[Patentpractice] Another AI experience -- FYI

[Patent Lawyer]

Yesterday (in my abundant free time), and purely as an academic exercise, I tried something with ChatGPT (the “AI”).

I gave the AI the text of an issued US patent (as a Word file).  I uploaded the drawings as PDFs.  Then, I gave the AI a claim that was broader than the issued claims, and I asked if that claim was supported in the application (it was).  I asked it to cite to the document, and it got the citations mostly correct.

I provided a version of a claim that had been rejected under Section 101 during prosecution.
I told the AI that the claim had been rejected under Section 101, and I asked the AI what I might add to the claim to get over a Section 101 rejection.

In response, the AI gave various suggestions, one of which was to add language about databases (which are described in the specification).

Here's where it got funny ("funny" strange, not "funny" haha).

My prompt to the AI:

Focus on the integration with the database systems and suggest claim language or elements to add. Also cite where those elements are supported in the application

It gave some response and a sample claim that included this:

- querying a xxxx database …, wherein the xxxx database system comprises a secure, distributed ledger configured to store blah blah blah

Well, the specification describes databases but says nothing about distributed ledgers.  Nothing at all.  And there would be no reason to use a distributed ledger for this application (but then I think there’s almost never a reason to use one).

My next prompt to the AI:

Where is there support for the "distributed ledger"?

The AI's response:

In the text I reviewed from the patent application you provided, there was no explicit mention of a "distributed ledger" or blockchain technology. My suggestion to include a "secure, distributed ledger" in the revised claim was an enhancement to strengthen the technological aspect of the claim under 35 USC 101, but this might not be directly supported by the current content of the patent application unless such technology is implicitly covered under broader database systems mentioned.

My response to the AI:

Redo your suggestions for this claim, and only make suggestions for claim language that is supported by the application

The AI's response:

Certainly! Let's revise the suggestions for the claim language by strictly adhering to the content that's explicitly supported by the patent application. …


[Curly Howard]

Buyer beware – this stuff is not yet ready!

Happy Friday!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240503/27efc07f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7784 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240503/27efc07f/attachment.jpg>