Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's reply and remarks of 09/19/2025 have been entered.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
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 2 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of eligibility analysis, the instant claims are directed towards a method and a system; thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories and are considered eligible subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of analysis, the claims describe a mental process including observations, evaluations, and opinions. This is recited as analyzing a string of factual elements (observations and evaluations) and generating feedback (an opinion) based on consideration of logical types. A mental process is considered an abstract idea.
Claim 2, which is illustrative of claim 20, contains those elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A method for networked-based and computerized dialogue interactivity, the method comprising: accessing a network-based digital resource presenting factual elements in a dialogue;
parsing the factual elements of the network-based digital resource, wherein parsing generates a string characterized by a plurality of words;
analyzing the string using an open recursive language model stored in network memory to associate a plurality of different components of the word string with respective logical types, wherein the plurality of different components include a first component that belongs to a first logical type and a second component that belongs to a second logical type;
generating feedback data based on the word string, wherein the feedback data is generated based on consideration of the first component belonging to the first logical type and consideration of the second component belonging to the second logical type; and
outputting the feedback data through an interface, wherein the feedback data evolves in real-time with the recursive language model.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 2 and 20 recite only the following additional elements:
networked-based and computerized;
a network-based digital resource;
network memory;
an interface;
a system comprising: a network interface that allows for access to a network-based digital resource;
at least one local memory; and
at least one processor, wherein execution of instructions stored in the at least one local memory by the at least one processor causes the at least one processor to….
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0024, 0025, 0032 – 0034], and Figures 6 and 7 as filed. See also [0160 – 0164] describing generic systems.
The claims further include an open recursive language model. However, the broad definition of this claim element is disclosed as: “Exemplary embodiments can be implemented to provide and allow machine and/or human processing of each of various tasks (e.g., analyzing, parsing, editing, etc.). For example, according to one embodiment, the technological implementation includes a human performing the parsing of a given text, while in alternative embodiments the content is processed automatically according to a natural language model as discussed above “. Thus, Applicant’s definition is congruent to the definition known by one in the art as ‘representing something by breaking it down into components’; i.e., word strings, recited above. Further, an open recursive language model is not detailed within the disclosure, it merely describes an intended result of a general language model employed; “…an open system that is essentially recursive.” See Specification [0095]. Thus, Applicant defines this model broadly as well, which one skilled in the art understands to be a computer program that has been trained on data. This additional element describes mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea within a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: (a system comprising: a network interface that allows for access to a network-based digital resource; at least one local memory; and at least one processor, instructions stored in the at least one local memory; and, open recursive language model), amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception within a computer environment cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 3 – 10, 16, and 21, contain limitations that are further refinements to the same abstract ideas found in claims 2 and 20. Recitations to a logical type,; counterpoints, critiques, or rebuttals; arguments; a conversation among two users; and feedback, are all the core facts to be evaluated and opined on and are directed to the abstract idea. These limitations further are performed by the “ network-based and computerized system” described in claims 2 and 20, which amounts to no more than simply instructing one to implement the abstract ideas within a computer environment. This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Dependent claims 11 – 15 and 17 – 19 contain limitations that are further refinements to the same abstract ideas found in claim 2. Recitations to a web-site, streaming media source, visual mapping, a live event, digital processing and analysis, and visually displaying, are limitations performed within a computer environment – the system broadly defined within claim 2. This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Therefore, for the reasons cited above, claims 2 – 21 are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without reciting significantly more.
Claims Distinguished Over Prior Art
Regarding claims 2 and 20, the prior art does not teach nor suggest a system or method as currently claimed. Upon updated research, the Examiner maintains the determination discussed within the Office Action filed 03/19/2025.
Regarding claims 3 – 19 and 21, based on their dependency to independent claims 2 and 20, they inherit the distinguished claim limitations and are therefore, also not disclosed by the prior art. Accordingly, these claims too, are distinguished over the prior art.
Noting that patentability of any claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner points to other rejections within this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments discuss rejection of prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See page 8. Applicant’s arguments contend that certain features (an interface) as well as a computerized and network-based system and methodology for dialogue interactivity cannot practically be performed in the human mind, and therefore, are not abstract ideas. See page 9. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
First, the Examiner disagrees that the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea. As detailed above, the amended claims describe a method for analyzing a string of factual elements (thereby describing observations and evaluations) and generating feedback (an opinion) based on consideration of logical types. These are noted as highlighted above when reciting: a method for dialogue interactivity, the method comprising: accessing factual elements in a dialogue; parsing the factual elements, wherein parsing generates a string characterized by a plurality of words; analyzing the string to associate a plurality of different components of the word string with respective logical types, wherein the plurality of different components include a first component that belongs to a first logical type and a second component that belongs to a second logical type; generating feedback data based on the word string, wherein the feedback data is generated based on consideration of the first component belonging to the first logical type and consideration of the second component belonging to the second logical type; and outputting the feedback data. These elements aptly describe a person observing facts, parsing the facts for relevant info (evaluating), and determining what type of logical argument it may be (making a judgment or an opinion). Because these elements are directly aimed at a collaborative dialogue (a conversation between two or more people), the Examiner maintains these certain elements describe a person evaluating certain arguments (factual elements) made by others within the dialogue. A human would practically perform evaluation of a conversation within the human mind before generating a response (feedback). Thus, the Examiner has determined the claims recite a mental process and Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s reliance on the aforementioned interface and network-based system is not persuasive. As detailed above, certain additional elements in the claims: a system comprising: a network interface that allows for access to a network-based digital resource; at least one local memory; and at least one processor, instructions stored in the at least one local memory; and, open recursive language model), amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception within a computer environment cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant next argues the claimed invention is akin to recursive artificial intelligence and would like to rely on guidance within the August 4 memorandum. See page 9. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
First, the Examiner notes that the memorandum “…is not intended to announce any new USPTO practice or procedure and is meant to be consistent with existing USPTO guidance.” Memorandum, page 1, (emphasis added). Further within the Memorandum is a Step 2A, Prong One, analysis discussion. See page 2. The Examiner maintains that the amended claims, as detailed above, describe a mental process including observations, evaluations, and opinions. The highlighted elements above are directed to limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including presenting factual elements in a dialogue; parsing the factual elements, wherein parsing generates a string characterized by a plurality of words; analyzing the string to associate a plurality of different components of the word string with respective logical types, wherein the plurality of different components include a first component that belongs to a first logical type and a second component that belongs to a second logical type; generating feedback data based on the word string, wherein the feedback data is generated based on consideration of the first component belonging to the first logical type and consideration of the second component belonging to the second logical type. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the conclusion that the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant next points to guidance that states to analyze the claims as a whole. See page 10. See also Memorandum page 3. The Examiner has completed this level of analysis and detailed a conclusion above, when discussing Step 2A, Prong Two. Because most of the claim elements recite an abstract idea, the only additional elements would be: a system comprising: a network interface that allows for access to a network-based digital resource; at least one local memory; and at least one processor, instructions stored in the at least one local memory; and, open recursive language model). These additional elements, taken in combination, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception within a computer environment cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant next points to further considerations if the claims reflect an improvement to computer technology or to another area of technology. See Remarks, page 11. This argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s own statement and disclosure that the instant invention is a “…method for providing proposition-based content for review within a collaborative environment”, is its own rebuttable. Reviewing and parsing factual elements (statements), and then analyzing the elements (i.e., evaluating), and providing feedback (an opinion) are recitations to wholly human performed tasks when collaborating with others. Thus, this statement, and the claim elements reciting these steps, describe an abstract idea and have no basis in technology. Applicant merely wants to collaborate and evaluate sentences and opinions using a computer. Therefore, no improvement to computer technology or any other area of technology is apparent.
Applicant adds a conclusory remark that the “quality of argument becomes ‘unassailable’”. See page 11. Again, this statement points to an intended outcome of improving arguments (dialogue), and does not point to any improvement to computer or any other technology.
Applicant makes a further reference to the Memorandum and discussion therein of Example 39 and new Example 47 and subject matter eligibility relevant to artificial intelligence. The Examiner notes that Applicant makes a generic reference to the instant claims reciting a recursive process more generally known as “recursive artificial intelligence.” See page 2. The Examiner finds this argument and references to the Examples not persuasive.
First, as discussed related to the Memorandum, artificial intelligence (AI) inventions are generally considered to be computer-implemented inventions. Thus, the disclosure should detail perhaps a modelling algorithm that is either technical information representing advances in the art or include additional details beyond a nominal recitation of an algorithm. The Examiner points to the Specification as detailing the method as a system that is “…essentially recursive.”. This is the only reference to a recursive model and is considered to be broad and nominal. Further, this model does not show any improvement to a technical area, it merely points to modeling an argument as one skilled in the art would understand it to be – a method of dialogue analysis.
Second, the Examiner points to Example 39, referenced and argues earlier, and notes the claims therein are not analogous to the instant claims. While Example 39 claims recited a neural network performing digital transformations and training, thus, not reciting an abstract idea; the instant claims recite parsing and analysis of facts within a dialogue. The instant claims recite a mental process unlike Example 39 and Applicant’s reliance here is not persuasive.
Applicant’s reliance on Example 47 may be more on point to the Examiner’s conclusion that the instant claims recite a mental process. Claim 2 of Example 47 is more aligned with the instant claims. Claim 2 of Example 47 was considered to fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Note also that Example 47 concluded that detecting and analyzing are abstract concepts is congruent with the instant application’s recitations of parsing and analyzing. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that a correct conclusion is that the instant, amended claims recite an abstract idea and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The NPL document discusses parsing natural language with recursive neural networks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629