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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is responsive to the applicant’s amendment dated 12/31/2025. The applicant amended claims 1-2, 11-12, and 20. Additionally, new claim 21 has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 (see Remarks, pg. 12, line 3 – pg. 15, line 21) filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First the applicant argues (pg. 14, line 3) that, “Claim 1 as amended further emphasizes a process that is not practically performed in the human mind, specifically "embedding the one or more spans via a pretrained large language model (LLM)”. The examiner doesn’t know where the applicant is reciting this limitation from. Next, the applicant argues (pg. 14, line 12-16) portions of the specification discusses how the claimed invention improves the efficiency. The Examiner does not believe those improvements are reflected in the claims. If the applicant is relying on these features to support their case for an inventive concept, those features need to be reflected in the claim language. In general, the classifiers/models that are being claimed are implemented on a generic processor. The applicant fails to show how the efficiency of one model over another correlates to improving the efficiency of the processor. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103, see Remarks (pg. 15, line 22 – pg. 18, line 27, filed 12/31/2025, with respect to claims 1-18 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-18 and 20 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 recite, “receiving, at the zero-shot classification model having a first computational efficiency and associated with a set of a plurality of classification labels having one or more classification labels that the zero-shot classification model has not been trained on, the input text”, “generating, via the base classifier having a second computational efficiency higher than the first computation efficiency and implemented on one or more processors, a subset of at least one classification labels having a fewer number of classification labels from the set of classification labels for the input text by”, “generating, via the base classifier, a first set of non-conformity scores corresponding to the set of the plurality of classification labels based on a calibration dataset configured to calibrate a nonconformity threshold for selectively restricting classification labels”, “computing an empirical quantile of the first set of non-conformity scores as the non-conformity threshold based on the first set of non-conformity scores and a pre-defined error rate, the empirical quantile being inversely proportional to a number of the non-conformity scores in the first set”, “receiving, by the base classifier, the input text as an input”, “generating, via the base classifier, a class prediction of the input text”, “generating, via the base classifier, a second set of non-conformity scores, wherein each non-conformity score in the second set is obtained by comparing the class prediction of the input text and each label from the set of classification labels”, “determining the subset of classification labels by selecting classification labels with corresponding non-conformity scores from the second set of non- conformity scores that are less than the non-conformity threshold”, “receiving, by the zero-shot classification model implanted on one or more processors, the input text as an input”, “generating, via the zero-shot classification model, a predicted classification label selected from the subset of classification labels for the input text”, and “predicting, a text classification of the input text from the news source based on the predicted classification label”.
The limitation of receiving an input text is a process, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting, “a communication interface”, “a memory”, “a plurality of processor”, and “a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium”, nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer components recited above, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses receiving user input through text, which a human can do with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of generating classification labels, as drafted, is a process, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the generic computer components above, nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses generating labels, which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of generating non-conformity scores is a process, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the generic computer components above, nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer components recited above, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses further scoring labels, which a human can do with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of computing a non-conformity threshold based on non-conformity scores and a pre-defined error rate is a process, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the generic computer components above, nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer components recited above, “computing” in the context of this claim encompasses calculating a set limit based off other values, which a human can do with a pen and paper. Next the limitation of receiving input text, as drafted, is a process, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the generic computer components above, nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “receiving”, in the context of this claim encompasses receiving text which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of a class prediction, as drafted, is a process, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the generic computer components above, nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “generating”, in the context of this claim encompasses analyzing text which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of generating non-conformity scores by comparing a class prediction and label is a process, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the generic computer components above, nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer components recited above, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses generating a similarity score based off a prediction and actual label, which a human with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of determining the subset of classification labels is a process, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the generic computer components above, nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer components recited above, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses determining further subclassifications based off similarity scores and thresholds, which a human can do with a pen and paper. Next the limitation of receiving input text, as drafted, is a process, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the generic computer components above, nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “receiving”, in the context of this claim encompasses receiving text which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of generating a predicted classification label is a process, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the generic computer components above, nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer components recited above, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses further categorizing labels, which a human can do with a pen and paper. Lastly, the limitations of predicting classification labels, is a process, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the generic computer components listed above, nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer components recited above, “predicting” in the context of this claim encompasses further analyzing text, which a human can do with a pen and paper.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the elements “a communication interface”, “a memory”, “a plurality of processor”, and “a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium”. These elements in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements perform the recited steps amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2-10, 12-18, and 21 are also rejected for the same reason provided in the independent claims above. The dependent claim, including the further recited limitation, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the additional elements, taken individually and in combination do not contribute to an inventive concept. In other words, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. There are no pending prior art rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ZEESHAN SHAIKH whose telephone number is (703)756-1730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/ZEESHAN MAHMOOD SHAIKH/Examiner, Art Unit 2658
/RICHEMOND DORVIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2658