Patent Drafting Analysis of Palantir Technologies Inc.’s Profile-Based AI System | US 2024/0419658 A1
Patent Drafting Analysis of Palantir Technologies Inc.'s Profile-Based AI System | US 2024/0419658 A1
A structural and strategic analysis of US 2024/0419658 A1, examining claim architecture, drafting quality signals, §101 eligibility exposure, critical prosecution gaps, and dependent claim fallback coverage across Palantir's profile-driven LLM prompt generation system.
Spec Words
8,200
Across 6 sections
Draft now ↗
Total Claims
20
1 independent · 19 dependent
Draft now ↗
Figure Sheets
10
System architecture, data flows, UI interfaces, profile objects
Draft now ↗
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · · 12 min read Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Overview
Structural Overview
The detailed description dominates at approximately 63% of total words (~5,200 words), providing expansive coverage of system modules, profiles, templates, and example user interfaces across 10 figure sheets. The claim set comprises 20 claims—1 independent method claim (Claim 1) and 19 dependent claims—yielding a 19:1 dependent-to-independent ratio that concentrates all claim protection in a single independent claim. Figure coverage is strong, with nine distinct figure sheets covering system architecture (FIG. 1A), data flows (FIG. 1B), profile structure (FIG. 2), method steps (FIG. 3), and user interfaces (FIGs. 4–9).
Section Word Distribution
↗ Click bars to exploreFigure Inventory — 10 Sheets
| Figure | Description | Role |
|---|---|---|
| FIG. 1A | Block diagram of the AI System 102 comprising User Interface Module 104, Profile Selection Module 106, Prompt Generation Module 108, and Context Module 110 in communication with LLMs 130a/130b and Data Processing Service 120 via Network 140.Search in Eureka ↗ | System architecture |
| FIG. 1B | Data flow diagram showing User Input 160, Context 170, and Selected Profile 180 flowing into Prompt Generation Module 108 to produce LLM Prompt 190 delivered to LLM 130.Search in Eureka ↗ | Flow diagram |
| FIG. 2 | Block diagram of Profile Data Object 210 illustrating its constituent elements: Template 220 with Rules 225, Knowledge Base 230, Functions 240, Plugins 250, and optional Ontology 260.Search in Eureka ↗ | Claim support |
| FIG. 3 | Flow diagram 300 illustrating method steps 310–360: determining a profile, determining a template, receiving natural language input, generating a prompt, initiating LLM execution, and receiving outputs.Search in Eureka ↗ | Flow diagram |
| FIG. 4 | Example user interface 400 displaying the "Life Science Analysts Profile" with Contents pane 420 showing Knowledge Base section 430, Plugins section 440, Functions section 450, search bar 460, Edit button 470, and Start Session button 480.Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 5 | User interface 500 showing a profile browse panel 510 listing multiple profiles (Life Science Analyst, Credit Risk Analyst), content type list 520, details pane 530 with Template and Plugins details, and search bar 540.Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 6 | User interface 600 showing an example excerpt 610 from a profile template including placeholders 611–616 for docsCorpus, context, plugin identifiers, functions content, user input, and format that are dynamically replaced during prompt generation.Search in Eureka ↗ | Claim support |
| FIG. 7 | User interface 700 for configuring rules 225 in a profile template, with interactive control 710 including dropdown field 711, text field 712, condition/condition group buttons 713/714, Cancel button 720, and Save button 730.Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 8 | User interface 800 for starting an AI system session with User field 810, Profile field 820 presenting a dropdown of selectable profiles, Model field 830 for selecting a language model, and Start Session button 840.Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 9 | User interface 900 showing interaction pane 910 with bar graph 940 output, exploration pane 920 with session history, decision graph 930, input area 950, and plugin monitor panel 960 with graphical display elements 961–965 tracking active plugins.Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka. Patent text and figures publicly available from USPTO. Draft a Similar Patent
Claims
Claim Architecture Analysis
The patent presents a single independent claim (Claim 1) drafted as a computer-implemented method, with 19 dependent claims building upon it — yielding a 19:1 dependent-to-independent ratio that significantly exceeds the Software/Cloud industry norm of approximately 4–8:1 and concentrates all patent protection in one independent claim. Notably absent are any independent system/apparatus claims or CRM claims in the formal claim set, though the specification at [0093] references "example clauses" 34–36 covering system and CRM formats that were not filed as formal claims. The single-independent structure provides breadth in the method context but creates significant vulnerability if Claim 1 is rejected or narrowed during prosecution.
Core inventive concept: Claim 1 solves the problem of requiring users to manually craft detailed LLM prompts by automatically determining a "profile" associated with a user's role or context — a profile that includes indications of knowledge base, functions, templates, and plugins — and using that profile to automatically generate a structured prompt delivered to the language model. The mechanism is profile-driven prompt construction: the system translates a short natural language user input into a rich, role-appropriate LLM prompt without requiring the user to write detailed instructions.
Independent Claim Dissection
| Claim | Preamble | Transition | Key Body Elements |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim 1 | A computer-implemented method comprising, by one or more hardware processors executing program instructions | comprising | receiving a first natural language user input from a user; determining a profile associated with user/user role/context (profile includes indications of: one or more knowledge base, one or more functions, one or more templates, and one or more plugins); generating a prompt based on the first natural language user input and the determined profile; providing the prompt to the language modelSearch prior art ↗ |
Claim Dependency Tree
1 Computer-implemented method: receiving NL user input, determining profile (knowledge base + functions + templates + plugins), generating LLM prompt, providing prompt to language modelSearch Claim 1 prior art ↗
2 Adds: knowledge base comprises a searchable corpus of dataSearch in Eureka ↗
3 Adds: functions comprise formulas usable to calculate and/or derive propertiesSearch in Eureka ↗
4 Adds: templates comprise one or more rules of business logicSearch in Eureka ↗
5 Further (dep. on 4): rules are defined in natural languageSearch in Eureka ↗
6 Further (dep. on 4): at least one rule is associated with a data objectSearch in Eureka ↗
7 Adds: plugins comprise one or more data processing toolsSearch in Eureka ↗
8 Adds: at least one plugin is activated prior to providing the prompt and configured to provide plugin output at least partially included in the promptSearch in Eureka ↗
9 Adds: further comprising receiving an output from the language model responsive to the natural language user inputSearch in Eureka ↗
10 Further (dep. on 9): at least one plugin activated after receiving output, configured to generate at least a portion of a result provided to userSearch in Eureka ↗
11 Adds: at least one plugin configured to access object database comprising plurality of objects stored according to object ontologySearch in Eureka ↗
12 Further (dep. on 11): plugin configured to search object database for object associated with at least a portion of LLM outputSearch in Eureka ↗
13 Further (dep. on 11): plugin configured to search object database for object associated with at least a portion of natural language user inputSearch in Eureka ↗
14 Adds: language model is selected based on the determined profileSearch in Eureka ↗
15 Adds: plugins are automatically selected according to one or more rules associated with the one or more templates associated with the profileSearch in Eureka ↗
16 Adds: profile further comprises ontology data comprising a semantic knowledge graph of data objectsSearch in Eureka ↗
17 Adds: generating the prompt comprises determining/receiving/accessing a template and generating the prompt based on at least the first NL user input and the templateSearch in Eureka ↗
18 Further (dep. on 17): generating the prompt further comprises appending or replacing text in the template based on the first NL user inputSearch in Eureka ↗
19 Further (dep. on 18): prompt generation further comprises accessing knowledge base, identifying relevant information, and appending/replacing text in template based on identified informationSearch in Eureka ↗
20 Adds: determining the profile comprises receiving user input identifying the profileSearch in Eureka ↗
| Metric | This Application | Software / Cloud Norm |
|---|---|---|
| Total claims | 20 | 15 – 25 |
| Independent claim count | 1 | 2 – 4 |
| Dependent : Independent ratio | 19.0 : 1 | 4 – 8 : 1 |
| Method claims present? | Yes — Claim 1 | Common |
| System / apparatus claims? | No | Common |
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka. Patent text and figures publicly available from USPTO. Draft a Similar Patent
Drafting Quality
Drafting Quality Signals
Claim 1's broad "comprising" transition and high-level recitation of profile elements (knowledge base, functions, templates, plugins) establishes a wide independent claim footprint, and the 19 dependent claims provide layered technical fallback positions covering ontology, plugin activation sequences, and template-based prompt construction. However, the complete absence of independent system/apparatus or CRM claims — despite the specification's own "example clauses" 34–36 explicitly drafting these formats — represents a significant structural weakness that undermines full-spectrum enforcement coverage.
✅
Antecedent Basis
Antecedent basis is generally clean throughout the 20-claim set. Claim 1 introduces "a first natural language user input," "a profile," and "a language model" with proper indefinite articles, and subsequent dependent claims correctly reference "the" profile, "the" language model, and "the" natural language user input. Claims 9 and 10 correctly introduce "an output" in Claim 9 and reference "the output" in Claim 10. No orphaned "the" references were identified across the claim set.
✅
Spec–Claim Consistency
The independent claim limitations map robustly to specific figures and paragraphs. The profile's four constituent elements (knowledge base, functions, templates, plugins) are directly illustrated in FIG. 2 and detailed at ¶¶[0052]–[0058]. The prompt generation step maps to FIG. 3 (blocks 340–350) and ¶¶[0066]–[0068]. The profile determination step maps to FIG. 3 (block 310) and ¶[0062]. The template placeholder mechanism supporting Claims 17–19 is specifically illustrated in FIG. 6 and described at ¶[0077].
✅
Transition Word Usage
All claims use "comprising" as the transition, which is strategically appropriate for a software method patent in this art unit — open-ended "comprising" prevents a competitor from designing around the claim by adding additional steps. The use of "comprising" in the profile definition sub-list ("the profile including indications of: one or more knowledge base; one or more functions; one or more templates; and one or more plugins") ensures that additional profile elements in a competitor's implementation do not avoid infringement. No missed opportunities for "consisting essentially of" narrowing were identified given the strategic posture.
⚠️
§112(f) Means-Plus-Function Risk
No explicit "means for" language appears in the formal claims, which avoids the clearest §112(f) invocation risk. However, Claim 1's recitation of purely functional limitations — "receiving," "determining," "generating," and "providing" — without structural recitation of how the hardware processors accomplish these steps could invite a §112(f) challenge under certain examiner interpretations, particularly for "determining a profile associated with the user, user role, or context." The specification does provide structural support via the Profile Selection Module 106 (¶[0038]) and Prompt Generation Module 108 (¶[0041]), which partially mitigates this risk but does not eliminate it for the "determining" step.
⚠️
§101 Eligibility Risk
Claim 1 faces meaningful Alice/Mayo exposure: the core concept of selecting a contextual profile and constructing a prompt from it is arguably an abstract idea of organizing/categorizing information and applying it to a query — a mental process analog. The hardware tie-in is present ("by one or more hardware processors executing program instructions") but minimal, and the specification's §101 defense at ¶¶[0006]–[0007] emphasizes computer-centric benefits (GUI interactions, LLM processing) without claim-level structural anchoring. Claims 11–13's object ontology database access and Claim 8's pre-prompt plugin activation provide stronger §101 defense positions and should be the fallback if Claim 1 encounters Alice rejection.
✅
Dependent Claim Fallback Quality
The 19 dependent claims add meaningfully distinct technical limitations across multiple dimensions. Claims 11–13 add an object ontology database access pathway that introduces a structurally distinct technical feature not present in Claims 1–10. Claim 8 (pre-prompt plugin activation) and Claim 10 (post-output plugin activation) provide distinct sequential trigger points. Claims 17–19 form a coherent three-step chain adding template access, text replacement, and knowledge-base-driven content injection — each adding unique structural content. Weaker fallback positions include Claim 20 (user input identifying the profile) which adds minimal subject matter over Claim 1.
⚠️
Abstract Quality
An examiner reading only the abstract may fail to identify the novel contribution: the abstract states the system uses "profiles associated with a user, role, cohort, and/or organization to bring additional operational context into user interactions" but omits the specific technical mechanism — the profile-driven automatic prompt generation that combines knowledge base, functions, templates, and plugins. The abstract does not mention the template placeholder substitution mechanism (FIG. 6), which is the most technically concrete and novel aspect of the invention. A stronger abstract would have referenced the automated profile-to-prompt pipeline and the structured prompt components.
✅
Figure Support Quality
Figure support is strong for the core claim limitations. FIG. 2 directly supports all four profile constituent elements of Claim 1 (knowledge base 230, functions 240, templates/rules 220/225, plugins 250). FIG. 3 supports the method step sequence of Claim 1. FIG. 6 supports Claims 17–19's template placeholder replacement mechanism. The object ontology limitations of Claims 11–13 are supported by FIG. 9 (plugin monitor showing Object Navigation plugin) and ¶¶[0033]–[0034]. No claim limitation was identified as lacking figure support, though the feedback/fine-tuning mechanism of Claims 28–30 (from the example clauses) has only narrative support in ¶[0071] with no dedicated figure.
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka. Patent text and figures publicly available from USPTO. Draft a Similar Patent
Scorecard
Strategic Intent Scorecard
Multi-dimensional assessment of this application's patent strategy quality, based on claim structure, specification depth, and prosecution positioning.
Claim Breadth
3.5
Prosecution Defensibility
3
Spec–Claim Consistency
4.2
Dependent Claim Coverage
3.8
Claim Type Diversity
1.5
Figure Support Quality
4
Key observation: Spec–Claim Consistency scores highest (4.2/5) because FIG. 2, FIG. 3, and FIG. 6 provide direct, specific support for every Claim 1 limitation and the key dependent claim chains (Claims 17–19), reducing written description rejection risk substantially. Claim Type Diversity scores lowest (1.5/5) because the entire patent relies on a single independent method claim — no independent system, apparatus, or CRM claim was filed, despite the specification's own "example clauses" 34–36 explicitly drafting these formats, leaving Palantir without enforcement coverage against defendants who implement the system without personally performing the method steps. Practitioners should prioritize filing a continuation with independent system and CRM claims mirroring Claim 1's limitations to recover this lost coverage.
See how your own draft compares — Open Eureka IP Drafting →
Critical Gaps
3 Critical Gaps in This Claim Set
A senior-attorney lens on the three highest-priority structural weaknesses — what each exposes in prosecution and litigation, and what a stronger filing would have done differently.
🔒
3 Critical Gaps in This Claim Set
See the full attorney-level analysis of what this application leaves unprotected — and how to draft it more defensively for your own filings.
No system or CRM claims filed §101 abstract idea exposure Claim 1 LLM fine-tuning feedback loop unclaimed
Unlock Full Analysis — Free Frequently asked questions
US 2024/0419658 A1 — key questions answered
Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them from patent data instantly. Search in Eureka
Disclaimer: This analysis is generated by PatSnap Eureka AI based on publicly available patent data from the USPTO. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Patent data may be subject to change as prosecution progresses. Scores and assessments reflect automated analysis and may not capture all relevant legal or technical nuances. Always consult a qualified patent attorney for formal legal opinions on patentability, freedom to operate, or infringement.
Ask anything about this patent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and data to answer instantly.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard