DETAILED ACTION Status of the Claims Claims 1- 21 are pending. Notice of AIA Status The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Claims 1- 20 have been interpreted to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f): (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim limitation s use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim s and corresponding limitation s are: In claim 1 , the limitation s : “ a risk identification subsystem configured to … ,” “ a risk validation subsystem configured to … ,” “ a search query generator subsystem configured to …, ” “ a content finder subsystem configured to …,” and “ a content summarizer subsystem configured to .” Claims 2- 16 are also being treated as invoking § 112(f) for substantially the same reasons as indicated above for claim 1, at least due to their dependence on the claim. Additionally, i n claim 6 , the limitation: “the news finder ….” Additionally, i n claim 7 , the limitation: “ the relevancy determination module ….” Additionally, i n claim 8 , the limitation: “ the article summarizer ….” Additionally, i n claim 9 , the limitation: “a mechanism for ….” Additionally, i n claim 10 , the limitation: “the news finder ….” Additionally, i n claim 12 , the limitation: “the news finder ….” In claim 1 8 , the limitation s : “ a latent information extraction subsystem configured to … ,” “ a document information extraction subsystem configured to … ,” “ a search query generator subsystem configured to …, ” “ a content finder subsystem configured to …,” and “ a content summarizer subsystem configured to .” Claims 17 - 20 are also being treated as invoking § 112(f) for substantially the same reasons as indicated above for claim 1 8 , at least due to their dependence on the claim. Because these claim limitation s are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2 -8, 10-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites the limitation “ where the risk identification module utilizes a knowledge store, such as a database of structured information or a Large Language Model (LLM) to obtain information about the financial entity .” There are insufficient antecedent bas e s for the phrase s “ the risk identification module ” and “the financial entity.” See MPEP § 2173.05(e). Claim 3 recites the limitation “ wherein the risk validation module uses a pre-trained version of Bidirectional and AutoRegressive Transformer (BART) to categorize chunks of text from trusted source documents into appropriate risk categories .” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “ the risk validation module .” Claim 4 recites the limitation “ wherein the risk validation module uses an LLM to validate, augment, and summarize risk descriptions .” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “ the risk validation module .” Claim 5 recites the limitation “ wherein the search query generator creates a graph of query templates based on predefined templates for each risk category .” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “ for each risk category .” Claim 6 recites the limitation “ wherein the news finder generates tensors with the embeddings for all the headlines found for a given financial entity, and a tensor with the embeddings for the elaborated risk description tied to the risk associated with a given article .” There are insufficient antecedent bas e s for the phrase s “ the news finder ” and “the embeddings. ” Claim 7 recites the limitation “ wherein the relevancy determination module uses an LLM to determine the top three most impactful headlines to the financial entity based on the risks faced by the entity .” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “ the relevancy determination module .” Claim 8 recites the limitation “ wherein the article summarizer uses an LLM to create a summary around how each of the articles impacts the financial entity based on the risks faced by the entity .” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “ the article summarizer .” Claim 10 recites the limitation “ wherein the news finder further applies a Headline Relevancy Model Transformer Neural Network to filter out spam articles and score the relevance of each article .” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “ the news finder .” Claim 11 recites the limitation “ wherein the Headline Relevancy Model Transformer Neural Network boosts the score if the headline includes the company name directly or specific keywords for a given risk category .” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “ the Headline Relevancy Model Transformer Neural Network .” Claim 12 recites the limitation “ w herein the news finder filters out articles that are duplicated, score less than the minimum relevancy score, or are from blacklisted websites/publishers, or are published before a certain number of days .” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “ the news finder .” Claim 15 recites the limitation “ a relevancy determination subsystem configured to select content to obtain based on the content relevancy scores, to obtain the content, and to store the content in a vector database .” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “ the content relevancy scores .” 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- 5 and 7- 2 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 may be characterized as a system for summarizing content concerning a risk to an entity . This claim has been evaluated under the Alice/Mayo subject matter eligibility test as provided in MPEP § 2106. I. Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. C ourts have defined a mental process to include both concepts that may be performed entirely in the human mind and concepts that require a human to employ a physical aid (e.g., a pen and paper or slide rule). MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Id. The following limitations encompass mental process es: “ a risk identification subsystem configured to extract information of an entity and to identify one or more risks faced by the entity based on the extracted information ;” “ a risk validation subsystem configured to generate augmented risk data based on analyzing the one or more identified risks with trusted source document information obtained from one or more trusted source documents ;” “ a search query generator subsystem configured to formulate one or more search queries based on the one or more identified risks and the augmented risk data ;” and “ a content summarizer subsystem configured to … generate summary data that provides a summary of content associated with the content indicator data .” The above limitations are drawn to identifying a risk faced by an entity (e.g., a company), analyzing the risk using a document (e.g., a 10-K filing or earnings call transcript ), authoring a search query, and summarizing content (e.g., a news article) . Th ese activit ies may be performed by a human with, for example, the aid of a pen and paper. II. Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite an additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. I ntegration into a practical application should be determined by: “(1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the [listed] considerations .” MPEP § 2106.04(d)(II) (emphasis added). The claim recites the following additional elements: an LLM; and “ a content finder subsystem configured to execute the one or more search queries to obtain search results having content indicator data .” A. The invention does not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Neither the claim nor the specification assert s that the invention improves upon the conventional functioning of a computer, conventional technology, or technological processes. Rather, the claim merely invokes a computer as a tool. B. An LLM is not a particular machine. A general-purpose computer that applies an abstract idea by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I). The claim recites the additional element of performing the claimed process using an LLM . A n LLM is generic computer technology. Accordingly, the recited abstract idea is not applied with, or by use of, a particular machine. C. Obtaining search results is an insignificant extra-solution activity. The recitation of an insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The claim recites the additional element of executing a search query to obtain search results. This is an insignificant extra -solution activity related to mere data gathering. D . The relevant considerations indicate that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. When evaluated as a whole, the above-identified considerations indicate that the recited 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. III. Step 2B: The claim does not recite an additional element that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. W hether a claim recites significantly more than an abstract idea should be determined by: (1) identifying any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and (2) evaluating those additional elements , individually and in combination, with respect to the relevant considerations. MPEP § 2106.05(II). First, as discussed above, the recited invention does not improve the functioning of a computer. Second, as discussed above, the recited LLM is generic computer technolog y . Third, as discussed above, obtaining search results is an insignificant extra-solution activity related to mere data gathering. Furthermore, courts have recognized that receiving data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, individually, the recited additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Finally, the combined additional elements do not result in a non-conventional or non-generic arrangement. Rather, the combined additional elements merely embody conventional data processing and data output functions performed by a generic computer. Accordingly, when evaluated individually and in combination, the above-identified considerations indicate that the recited additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. IV. Conclusion: Ineligible The claim has been found to be directed to an abstract idea without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not qualify as patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 2 , which depends on claim 1, is directed to using a knowledge store . As a knowledge store (e.g., database) is generic computer technology, the abstract idea is neither integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Claim 3 , which depends on claim 1, is directed to using a pre-trained b idirectional and autoregressive transformer (BART) to categorize text into risk categories . As a BART is generic computer technology, the abstract idea is neither integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Claim 4 , which depends on claim 1, is directed to using an LLM to validate, augment, and summarize risk descriptions . Validating, augmenting, and summarizing risk descriptions in a mental process. As an LLM is generic computer technology, the abstract idea is neither integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Claim 5 , which depends on claim 1, is directed to creating a graph of query templates for risk categories . This limitation encompasses a mental process . Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Claim 7 , which depends on claim 1, is directed to using an LLM to determine impactful headlines . Determining impactful headlines is a mental process. As an LLM is generic computer technology, the abstract idea is neither integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Claim 8 , which depends on claim 1, is directed to using an LLM to create a summary . Creating a summary is a mental process. As an LLM is generic computer technology, the abstract idea is neither integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Claim 9 , which depends on claim 1, is directed to synthesizing company-level summaries or insights . This limitation encompasses a mental process . Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Claim 10 , which depends on claim 1, is directed to using a neural network to filter out spam articles and score the relevance of articles. Filtering out articles and scoring articles are mental process es . As a neural network is generic computer technology, the abstract idea is neither integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Claim 11 , which depends on claim 1 0 , is directed to using the neural network to boost the score if a headline includes certain words . This limitation encompasses a mental process . Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Claim 12 , which depends on claim 1, is directed to filtering articles based on various conditions . This limitation encompasses a mental process . Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Claim 13 , which depends on claim 1, is directed to selecting a search query based on various conditions . This limitation encompasses a mental process . Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Claim 14 , which depends on claim 1, is directed to generating content relevancy scores . This limitation encompasses a mental process . Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Claim 15 , which depends on claim 1, is directed to selecting content based on a relevancy score, obtaining content, and storing content in a vector database. Selecting content based on a relevancy score is a mental process. Obtaining content and storing content are merely insignificant extra -solution activit ies . As a vector database is generic computer technology, the abstract idea is neither integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Claim 16 , which depends on claim 1, is directed to summary data that indicates impacts . This limitation encompasses a mental process . Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 1. Rather than identifying risks and generating augmented risk data, the claim is more broadly directed to extracting latent information of an entity and obtaining document information related to an entity. These are mental processes. The other limitations are no different than the corresponding limitations of claim 1 in substance. Accordingly, this claim is subject matter ineligible for substantially the same reasons indicated above for claim 1 . Claim 18 , which depends on claim 1 7 , is directed to the latent information and document information pertaining to risks associated with an entity . This limitation encompasses a mental process . Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Claim 19 , which depends on claim 1 7 , is directed to the content indicator data of the search results including headlines and the associated content including an article body . This limitation encompasses a mental process . Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Claim 20 , which depends on claim 1 7 , is directed to generating relevancy scores and using the relevancy scores to select content . This limitation encompasses a mental process . Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Claim 2 1 is directed to a method for performing the functions of the system recited in claim 1 7 . The process claim is no different than the corresponding system claim in substance. Accordingly, this claim is subject matter ineligible for substantially the same reasons indicated above. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208, 226-27 (2014). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Asher D Kells whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7729 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon. - Fri., 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Kieu Vu can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-4057 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT Asher D. Kells Primary Examiner Art Unit 2171 /Asher D Kells/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171