DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 30 June 2026.
Claims 1, 14, and 19 are amended in the response received.
Claims 15 and 16 were previously canceled.
Claims 1-14 and 17-20 are pending and are rejected.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
As indicated in the Office Action mailed on 08 January 2026, claims 1-14 and 17-20 recite allowable subject matter and would be allowable if the claims were re-written or amended to overcome the 101 rejection indicated in the Office Action below.
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 1-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-13 are directed to a method, claims 14 & 17-18 are directed to a product of manufacture (non-transitory computer readable medium), and claims 19-20 are directed to an apparatus.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention describes an abstract idea of generating text describing attributes. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
obtaining a first text, a second text, and a data source, wherein the data source includes a plurality of attributes;
determining that a salient attribute in the first text from among the plurality of attributes occurs in the second text an insufficient number of times; and
generating by language and in response to the determination, an augmented text based on the salient attribute by determining a difference between the first text and the second text based on the salient attribute, encoding the difference to obtain a difference embedding and combining the difference embedding with a positional embedding, and performing an attention mechanism on the difference embedding and the positional embedding to obtain the augmented text, wherein the augmented text includes natural langue that describe the salient attribute,
wherein to predict a sequence corresponding to the augmented text.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 describes the abstract idea of generating text describing attributes as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims specifically recite steps of obtaining a first text, a second text, and a data source, where the data source includes a plurality of attributes (i.e., of a product), determining that a salient attribute in the first text from among the plurality occurs in the second text an insufficient number of times, generating by a language and in response to the determination an augmented text based on the salient attribute by determining a difference between the first text and the second text based on the salient attribute, encoding the difference to obtain a difference embedding and combining the difference embedding with a positional embedding, and performing an attention mechanism on the difference embedding and the positional embedding to obtain the augmented text, wherein the augmented text includes natural language that describes the salient attribute, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. In this case, representative claim 1 includes the additional elements of a language generation model, by computing, a vector space, and wherein the language generation model comprises a transformer-based model comprising an artificial neural network including a plurality of transformer layers and wherein the attention mechanism is performed by a transformer layer of the plurality of transformer layers to predict a sequence of tokens. These additional elements individually and in combination do not integrate the exception into the practical application because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer, as defined in the MPEP 2106.04(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself), as discussed in MPEP 2106.05. In this case, the additional elements of a language generation model, by computing, a vector space, and wherein the language generation model comprises a transformer-based model comprising an artificial neural network including a plurality of transformer layers and wherein the attention mechanism is performed by a transformer layer of the plurality of transformer layers to predict a sequence of tokens recited in the independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner and merely apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). As such, the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Independent claims 14 and 19 are similar in nature to representative claim 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 1. It is noted that in independent claim 14 includes the additional elements of non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to, and independent claim 19 includes the additional elements of a memory component, and a processing device coupled to the memory component, the processing device configured to perform operations. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to in claim 14, and a processing device coupled to the memory component, the processing device configured to perform operations in claim 19, as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claims 14 and 19 are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claim 14 and 19 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claim 14 and 19, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, claim 14 and 19 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-13, 17-18 and 20, depending from claims 1, 14 and 19, respectively do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claim 1. The claims of 2-13, 17-18, and 20 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims include the additional elements of cleaning, lemmatizing, stemming, vectorizing (claim 3), saliency machine learning model (claims 5 and 6), knowledge graph (claim 7), training component and training, by the training component, the language generation model based on the training data (claims 10 and 20), and a user interface (claim 11). Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the cleaning, lemmatizing, stemming, vectorizing (claim 3), saliency machine learning model (claims 5 and 6), knowledge graph (claim 7), training component and training, by the training component, the language generation model based on the training data (claims 10 and 20), and a user interface (claim 11), as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 3, 5-7, 10-11 and 20 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 3, 5-7, 10-11, and 20, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 2, 4, 8-9, 12-13, and 17-18 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, dependent claims 2-13, 17-18, and 20 are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 30 June 2026, have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 10-11 of the remarks stating “Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity,” and “the recited operations are not a fundamental economic practice,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the enumerated subgrouping of a certain method of organizing human activity, where the activities recited are related to sales activities or behaviors. Although the claims do not specifically recite the activities of purchasing, negotiating, nor pricing, the claims are still directed to the generation of text describing attributes, which in this case, the claims are interpreted under BRI to be describing attributes related to products and the augmentation of the text describing attributes. This is also consistent to what is described in Applicant’s specification, such as in paragraph [0001] of the Applicant’s specification stating that the claimed invention “relates generally to data processing, and more specifically to product description augmentation,” and paragraph [0004] describes that the analysis includes “semantic analysis of a product review for a product to obtain review data including an attribute of the product”. Even when considering the amendments to the claims, the claims are still directed to the abstract idea and that falls into the enumerated grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity, where the steps are related to sales activities or behaviors.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 11-13 of the remarks stating “Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 recites additional elements, including at least ‘wherein the language generation model comprises a transformer-based model comprising an artificial neural network including a plurality of transformer layers and wherein the attention mechanism is performed by a transformer layer of the plurality of transformer layers to predict a sequence of tokens corresponding to the augmented text,’ that integrate an alleged abstract judicial exception into a practical application,” and further “The Specification then describes a specific technical solution” and “submits that claim 1 recite at least the additional elements” and “when evaluated with other elements of claim 1, enables claim 1 to reflect the disclosed improvement, thereby integrating the abstract judicial exception into a practical application,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, and considering the amendments to the claims, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although the claims now recite the additional elements of a language generation model, by computing, a vector space, and wherein the language generation model comprises a transformer-based model comprising an artificial neural network including a plurality of transformer layers and wherein the attention mechanism is performed by a transformer layer of the plurality of transformer layers to predict a sequence of tokens, the claimed additional elements in combination and individually are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed additional elements are still recited in a generic manner and are being used to apply the abstract idea. For example, the claimed language generation model comprising a transformer-based model is not explained sufficiently to reflect anything more than generically recited elements nor any type of improvement to the technology itself. The MPEP (2106.05(a)) provides further guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, as indicated in 2106.05(d)(1) of the MPEP “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool”. Id citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. This is reflected in at least paragraphs [0001]-[0002] of Applicant’s specification, which describe Applicant’s claimed invention is directed toward solving problems related to “efficiently combining additional information with an existing product review”. Although the claims include computer technology such as a language generation model, by computing, a vector space, and wherein the language generation model comprises a transformer-based model comprising an artificial neural network including a plurality of transformer layers and wherein the attention mechanism is performed by a transformer layer of the plurality of transformer layers to predict a sequence of tokens, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving the existing technological process but are directed to improving the commercial task of generation of text describing attributes. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in improvements to product descriptions, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the processor and computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while still employing the same processor and computer components used in conventional systems to improve generation of text describing attributes, e.g. commercial process. As such, the claims do not recite specific technological improvements and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 14-16 of the remarks stating “Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 recites additional elements” and “enable claim 1 to recite an ordered combination of elements that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional,” and “This particular ordered arrangement is not generic computer implementation of the alleged abstract idea,” and further stating “therefore provides an inventive concept and amounts to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception,” and “the claims similarly recite ordered combinations of elements that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional, and thereby providing an inventive concept and amounting to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that if it had been concluded under Step 2A, that, e.g., an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion under Step 2B, which includes an evaluation of well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05). In this case, the examiner has not concluded that any of the claim limitations represent insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, any considerations under Berkheimer as to what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in this case, are unnecessary. However, under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, the amended claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and do not provide an inventive concept because the claims recite additional elements, that even when considered in an ordered combination, are still recited in a generic manner. As stated above, the claimed additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea and are merely being used to apply the abstract idea with generic computing components. Therefore, the amended claims do not provide an inventive concept and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus, the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
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 ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights