CTFR 17/654,439 CTFR 99198 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims The present application is being examined under the claims filed 02/20/2026. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-18, and 20 are pending. Response to Amendment This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed 02/20/2026 in response to office action mailed 11/21/2025. The Applicant’s remarks and any amendments to the claims or specification have been considered with the results that follow. Response to Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 In Remarks page 5, Argument 1 (Examiner summarizes Applicant’s arguments) Applicant argues that claim 1 is not directed to any abstract idea. Applicant argues that receiving historical data is not performable in the human mind. Applicant further argues that rating each explanation method using a weighting function is not practically performable in the human mind Examiner’s response to Argument 1 Examiner does not contest that there are some elements which cannot be performed in the human mind (see additional elements listed in steps 2A prong 2 and 2B of the 101 rejections). However, certain elements are directed to abstract ideas. For example, rating explanation methods using a weighting function directly recites using a math function (i.e. more than merely based on/involving math) and thus is directed to a mathematical concept. Applicants arguments with respect to 2A prong 1 are not convincing. In Remarks pages 6-7, Argument 2 (Examiner summarizes Applicant’s arguments) Applicant argues that features of claim 1 integrate into a practical application by providing an explanation of an output of an artificial intelligence model. Applicant recites the claim limitations and states that they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner’s response to Argument 2 Applicant’s arguments are not convincing because they do not explain why the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application beyond reciting the claim elements. In Remarks pages 7-9, Argument 3 (Examiner summarizes Applicant’s arguments) Applicant argues that claim 1 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application because it provides improvements to existing AI explanation systems. Applicant provides example sections of the specification and states that the specification discloses improvements. Examiner’s response to Argument 3 MPEP 2106.05(a) recites:After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. […] That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel") […] It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. Applicant identifies areas of the specification that allege an improvement to technology. However, Examiner maintains that any improvements are not reflected in the claims. That is, the claims recite abstract idea limitations (which cannot alone provide the technical improvement) and further recite additional elements which do not substantially provide to any alleged disclosed improvements. The claims recite receiving and accessing data with no details about how the data is received or accessed but instead merely limit the type of data being retrieved. This still amounts to ordinary computer memory operations that off-the-shelf computers perform. The claims generically recite artificial intelligence models and limits the technical field to improving or debugging artificial intelligence without the “components or steps of the invention” that improve or debug the artificial intelligence. Even when considering the claim as a whole combination, the additional elements do not enable any disclosed improvements. Therefore, the rejections for all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained. See rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 for a complete analysis. Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 In Remarks pages 9-13, Argument 4 (Examiner summarizes Applicant’s argument) Applicant argues that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are improper. Examiner’s response to Argument 4 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn thus rendering Applicant’s arguments moot. Allowable Subject Matter The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-18, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. This communication warrants no examiner's reason for allowance, as the record makes evident the reason for allowance, satisfying the record "as a whole" as required by rule 37 CFR 1.104 (e). Accordingly, the reason for allowance is in all probability evident from the record and no statement for examiner's reason for allowance is necessary (see MPEP 1302.14). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for containing an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding Claim 1: Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes, the claim is to a process. Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes, the claim recites the abstract ideas of: A method of providing an explanation of an output or a behavior — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). identifying a context and a user profile associated with the user, the context indicating a user’s reason for making the explanation request — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). rating each explanation method from among the plurality of explanation methods based on a set of explanation evaluation criteria corresponding to the context and the user profile, wherein the rating includes generating a weighting function based on the historical data including the user positivity reactions, and calculating a weighted sum score for each explanation method based on the weighting function and predefined criteria evaluation scores — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical process, and mathematical calculations in particular (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. C.). The claim describes the mathematical operations of weighting functions (or weighted averages) in words . selecting an explanation method having a highest rating from among the plurality of explanation methods — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). and providing an explanation of the output or the behavior of the artificial intelligence system corresponding to the selected explanation method to the user — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). Particularly, “providing an explanation” includes making a judgement on how the artificial intelligence system performed the output or behavior. Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements: of an artificial intelligence model — This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Using artificial intelligence to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Even if the artificial intelligence is implemented on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)), the limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. the method executable by a processor, comprising: — This limitation is directed to merely applying an abstract idea using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)). receiving historical data including user positivity reactions to past explanations of an output or a behavior of an artificial intelligence system, the user positivity reactions being based on a plurality of different combinations of user profiles and contexts; receiving an explanation request corresponding to the output or the behavior of an artificial intelligence system from a user — This limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). accessing a plurality of explanation methods corresponding to the artificial intelligence system, each explanation method providing an independent explanation for the output or the behavior of the artificial intelligence system — This limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). wherein the context comprises improving or debugging the artificial intelligence system — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the context. Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself? No, the claim does not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2: of an artificial intelligence model — Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. the method executable by a processor, comprising: — Using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. receiving historical data including user positivity reactions to past explanations of an output or a behavior of an artificial intelligence system, the user positivity reactions being based on a plurality of different combinations of user profiles and contexts; receiving an explanation request corresponding to the output or the behavior of an artificial intelligence system from a user — This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering of transmitting and receiving data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.), which cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. accessing a plurality of explanation methods corresponding to the artificial intelligence system, each explanation method providing an independent explanation for the output or the behavior of the artificial intelligence system — This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering of storing and retrieving information in memory, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.), which cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. wherein the context comprises improving or debugging the artificial intelligence system — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding Claim 2 Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations: Step 2A Prong 2: wherein the context further comprises gaining insights about recommendations of the artificial intelligence system — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the context . Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. Step 2B: The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2: wherein the context further comprises gaining insights about recommendations of the artificial intelligence system — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Regarding Claim 3 Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations: Step 2A Prong 2: wherein the context further comprises one or more from among: having better control of the artificial intelligence system, and discovering new knowledge about a domain associated with the artificial intelligence system — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the context . Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. Step 2B: The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2: wherein the context comprises one or more from among: improving or debugging the artificial intelligence system, gaining insights about recommendations of the artificial intelligence system, having better control of the artificial intelligence system, discovering new knowledge about a domain associated with the artificial intelligence system, and auditing the artificial intelligence system based on legal or ethical requirements — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Regarding Claim 4 Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations: Step 2A Prong 2: wherein the user profile comprises one or more from among: a model builder, a decision-making user, an end customer, a regulator, a business owner, a user with artificial intelligence system knowledge, and a user with domain-level knowledge — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the user profile . Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. Step 2B: The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2: wherein the user profile comprises one or more from among: a model builder, a decision-making user, an end customer, a regulator, a business owner, a user with artificial intelligence system knowledge, and a user with domain-level knowledge — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Regarding Claim 6 Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim merely recites the additional abstract ideas: Step 2A Prong 1: wherein selecting the explanation method having the highest rating comprises: ranking each explanation method based on the weighted sum scores — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). and selecting an explanation method having a greatest weighted sum score — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Regarding Claim 8 Independent claim 8 is a computer system claim corresponding to method claim 1, which was directed to an abstract idea, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies. The only difference is that claim 8 recites the following additional elements treated under step 2A prong 2 and step 2B: Step 2A Prong 2: A computer system for providing an explanation of an output or a behavior of an artificial intelligence model, the computer system comprising: one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media configured to store computer program code; and a processor, the processor communicatively coupled to the memory, the processor, in response to reading the one or more instructions, configured to — This limitation is directed to merely applying an abstract idea using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)). Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. Step 2B: A computer system for providing an explanation of an output or a behavior of an artificial intelligence model, the computer system comprising: one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media configured to store computer program code; and a processor, the processor communicatively coupled to the memory, the processor, in response to reading the one or more instructions, configured to — Using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Regarding Claim 9 Dependent claim 9 is a computer system claim corresponding to method claim 2, which was directed to an abstract idea, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies. Regarding Claim 10 Dependent claim 10 is a computer system claim corresponding to method claim 3, which was directed to an abstract idea, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies. Regarding Claim 11 Dependent claim 11 is a computer system claim corresponding to method claim 4, which was directed to an abstract idea, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies. Regarding Claim 13 Dependent claim 13 is a computer system claim corresponding to method claim 6, which was directed to an abstract idea, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies. Regarding Claim 15 Independent claim 15 is a computer-readable medium claim corresponding to method claim 1, which was directed to an abstract idea, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies. The only difference is that claim 15 recites the following additional elements treated under step 2A prong 2 and step 2B: Step 2A Prong 2: A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a computer program for providing an explanation of an output or a behavior of an artificial intelligence model, the computer program configured to cause one or more computer processors to: — This limitation is directed to merely applying an abstract idea using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)). Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. Step 2B: A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a computer program for providing an explanation of an output or a behavior of an artificial intelligence model, the computer program configured to cause one or more computer processors to: — Using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Regarding Claim 16 Dependent claim 16 is a computer-readable medium claim corresponding to method claim 2, which was directed to an abstract idea, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies. Regarding Claim 17 Dependent claim 17 is a computer-readable medium claim corresponding to method claim 3, which was directed to an abstract idea, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies. Regarding Claim 18 Dependent claim 18 is a computer-readable medium claim corresponding to method claim 4, which was directed to an abstract idea, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies. Regarding Claim 20 Dependent claim 20 is a computer-readable medium claim corresponding to method claim 6, which was directed to an abstract idea, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ezra J Baker whose telephone number is (703)756-1087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 8:00 pm ET. 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, David Yi can be reached at (571) 270-7519. 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. /E.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2126 /DAVID YI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/654,439 Page 2 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/654,439 Page 3 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/654,439 Page 4 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/654,439 Page 5 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/654,439 Page 6 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/654,439 Page 7 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/654,439 Page 8 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/654,439 Page 9 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/654,439 Page 10 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/654,439 Page 11 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/654,439 Page 12 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/654,439 Page 13 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/654,439 Page 14 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/654,439 Page 15 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/654,439 Page 16 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/654,439 Page 17 Art Unit: 2126
Prosecution Insights