DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to the amendment filed 11 May 2026.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-18 and 20-21 are currently pending and considered below.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 May 2026 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed features place the amended independent claims within a technological environment that is outside of what a human mind can do. The amended independent claims recite that the large language model generates the framework using the prompt and that the large language model writes the document using the framework and the section writing prompt.
Applicant further submits that the claimed features in the amended independent claims show how the large language model is prompted to complete the task of writing the document. For example, the amended independent claims recite, in part, "providing, to a large language model, a prompt created based on the input query that includes a chain of thought for preparing the document, a goal for the document, a length of the document, and data sources to use in writing the document; generating, by the large language model in response to the prompt, a framework that provides an outline of the document with a list of sections and subsections for the document, wherein the large language model uses the prompt in writing the sections and the subsections of the document.. . providing, to the large language model, a section writing prompt that provides additional instructions to the large language model for writing the sections and the subsections of the document based on the feedback; writing, by the large language model using the framework and the section writing prompt, the sections and the subsections of the document with natural language generated by the large language model and references to the data sources that the large language model used in writing the document."
However, the LLM is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions) and the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Merely applying the exception using generic computer components does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Applicant further argues:
The Applicant further submits that the features recited in the amended independent claims "provide benefits and/or solve problems associated with using LLMs to automatically generate documents." See, Specification, paragraph [0025]. The Applicant submits that one "technical advantage of the system and methods of the present disclosure is using LLMs to automatically generate documents with references to the data source given a topic for the documents," and that by "providing grounded documents 14 to the user with reference to the data sources 110, 112 used by the LLM(s) 108 in generating the document 14, the user 104 is able to easily identify the support for the information included in the document 14." See, Specification, paragraphs [0026] and [0081].
However, merely using LLM to generate documents with references boils down to applying the abstract idea (generating documents with references) using generic computer components which neither provide significantly more than the abstract idea nor integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. (Fed. Cir. April 18, 2025)- “Machine learning is a burgeoning and increasingly important field and may lead to patent-eligible improvements in technology. Today, we hold only that patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101.”
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 1-8, 10, 12-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more. Further, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In claims 1 and 14, the limitations receiving an input query with a topic for a document; providing, query that includes a chain of thought for preparing the document, a goal for the document, a length of the document, and data sources to use in writing the document; generating,
That is, other than reciting a “large language model” and a “user interface” (claims 1 and 14) and a “device, comprising: a memory to store data and instructions; and a processor operable to communicate with the memory, wherein the processor is operable to” (claim 14) nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being methods for organizing human activity. For example, the claims may describe an interaction between a student and a teacher. In particular receiving an input query with a topic for a document (the student receiving a topic for a paper); providing a prompt created based on the input query that includes a chain of thought for preparing the document, a goal for the document, a length of the document, and data sources to use in writing the document (the student receiving particular guidance such as length of the paper and sources to use to write the paper); generating in response to the prompt, a framework that provides an outline of the document with a list of sections and subsections for the document, wherein uses the prompt in writing the sections and the subsections of the document (the student generating an outline with sections and sub-sections based on the guidance and topic); presenting the framework prior to writing the document; receiving feedback on the framework (the student presenting to the teacher the outline before writing the paper); providing a section writing prompt that provides additional instructions for writing the sections and the subsections of the document based on the feedback (the teacher providing additional guidance to make corrections on the outline); writing using the framework and the section writing prompt, the sections and the subsections of the document with natural language generated and references to the data sources that used in writing the document (the student writing the paper based on the teacher’s guidance); and providing the document in response to the input query, wherein the document is a grounded technical document written on demand in response to the input query (the student turning the paper in).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior, relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements – a “large language model” and a “user interface” (claims 1 and 14) and a “device, comprising: a memory to store data and instructions; and a processor operable to communicate with the memory, wherein the processor is operable to” (claim 14) which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As stated above, the claims recite the additional limitations of a “large language model” and a “user interface” (claims 1 and 14) and a “device, comprising: a memory to store data and instructions; and a processor operable to communicate with the memory, wherein the processor is operable to” (claim 14). However, these are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications (see Applicant’s specification [0053], [0054] and [0091]). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Moreover, see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. (Fed. Cir. April 18, 2025)- “Machine learning is a burgeoning and increasingly important field and may lead to patent-eligible improvements in technology. Today, we hold only that patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101.”
The dependent claims, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite:
further comprising: receiving a modification to the framework for the document; and generating an updated framework in response to the modification, wherein the large language model uses the updated framework to write the sections and the subsections of the document;
wherein the modification is an addition of a section, an addition of a subsection, a removal of a section, a removal of a subsection, editing a section, or editing a subsection;
wherein the input query further includes areas of focus for the topic and the sections and the subsections include additional content for the areas of focus.
wherein the input query further includes a set of data sources to use in providing the data for the document;
wherein the set of data sources are trusted data sources.
wherein the data sources includes a combination of publicly available data sources and private data sources;
further comprising: automatically generating, by the large language model, a list of references at an end of the document with citations to the data sources used in generating the document, wherein the references within the sections and the subsections correspond to the list of references;
further comprising: providing, to the large language model, a preparation prompt that the large language model uses to identify information needed to prepare the document, wherein the large language model uses the preparation prompt to identify the information; and sending a retrieval request for the data to use in writing the document based on the information;
wherein the sections or the subsections further include figures or tables automatically created by the large language model;
wherein the document is a report on the topic, a grounded technical report on the topic, a contract, a funding proposal, a clinical trial protocol, or product documentation; and
wherein the feedback includes one of accepting the framework, modifying the framework, or requesting a new framework.
The additional recited limitations further narrow the steps of the independent claims without however providing “a practical application of” or "significantly more than" the underlying “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Conclusion
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 SAMUEL G NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm 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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
/SAMUEL G NEWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights