[Patentpractice] Another AI experience -- FYI

[Lou Puls]

...especially #NotYetReady for the language translation of a foreign
language patent for local filing without the grammatical assistance of
native-speaker-level participation!

On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 12:07 PM Katherine Koenig via Patentpractice <
patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> Interesting!
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Katherine
>
>
>
> Dr. Katherine Koenig
>
> *Registered Patent Attorney*
>
> Koenig IP Works, PLLC
>
> 2208 Mariner Dr.
>
> Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
>
> (954) 903-1699
>
> katherine at koenigipworks.com
>
>
>
> *Targeted Intellectual Property Strategy*
>
>
>
> *The information contained in this communication, including any
> attachments, is privileged and confidential information intended only for
> the use of the individual or entity named above.  If **you are not the
> intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to
> the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
> prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, do not read
> it.  Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this
> communication in error and then destroy all paper and electronic copies.
> Thank you.*
>
>
>
> *From:* Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On
> Behalf Of *Patent Lawyer via Patentpractice
> *Sent:* Friday, May 3, 2024 12:49 PM
> *To:* Patentpractice Patentpractice <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Patent Lawyer <patentlawyer995 at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* [Patentpractice] Another AI experience -- FYI
>
>
>
> 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. …*
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: Curly Howard]
>
>
>
> Buyer beware – this stuff is not yet ready!
>
>
>
> Happy Friday!
> --
> Patentpractice mailing list
> Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com
>
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240503/77bcb080/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7679 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240503/77bcb080/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7784 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240503/77bcb080/attachment.jpg>