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. DETAILED ACTION This action is response to the communication filed on September 15, 2023 . Claims 6-14 are pending. Claims 1-5 are canceled by the preliminary amendment filed on September 15, 2023. preliminary amendment The preliminary amendment filed on September 15, 2023 has been entered. Claim Objections Claims 11-14 are objected to because they are duplicate of claims 7-10. Appropriate correction is required. 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 6 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding the claim 6 , it recites generating files wherein in a first step, existing data is filtered, prepared, and cleaned , and subsequently a t raining corpus tailored to meet desired/intended results is produced from the prepared data, wherein the filtered and prepared data are normalized. The limitation generating files and training corpus as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. User can mentally generate data file and trained their mind by thinking. Therefore, the generating and training limitations are a mental process. The limitations filtered, prepared, and cleaned can be interpreted as additional limitation but as it drafted nothing but data gathering and manipulation which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, 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. The claim is directed to the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of filtered, prepared, and cleaned no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) ). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 7 is dependent on claim 6 and includes all the limitations of claim 6 . Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of generating file . The claim recites the limitations of wherein the data are disassembled, represented, compared, and processed as individual tokens or digits for normalization , which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process. Claim 8 is dependent on claim 6 and includes all the limitations of claim 6 . Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of generating file . The claim recites the limitations of wherein new data is generated from the training by means of the normalized data , which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process. Claim 9 is dependent on claim 6 and includes all the limitations of claim 6 . Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of generating file . The claim recites the limitations of wherein the files are texts, audio formats, or videos , which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process. Claim 10 is dependent on claim 6 and includes all the limitations of claim 6 . Therefore, claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of generating file . The claim recites the limitations of wherein the data and file generation are carried out via at least one API , which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process. Claim 11 is dependent on claim 7 and includes all the limitations of claim 7 . Therefore, claim 11 recites the same abstract idea of generating file . The claim recites the limitations of wherein the data are disassembled, represented, compared, and processed as individual tokens or digits for normalization , which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process. Claim 12 is dependent on claim 7 and includes all the limitations of claim 7 . Therefore, claim 12 recites the same abstract idea of generating file . The claim recites the limitations of wherein new data is generated from the training by means of the normalized data , which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process. Claim 13 is dependent on claim 7 and includes all the limitations of claim 7 . Therefore, claim 13 recites the same abstract idea of generating file . The claim recites the limitations of wherein the files are texts, audio formats, or videos , which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process. Claim 14 is dependent on claim 7 and includes all the limitations of claim 7 . Therefore, claim 14 recites the same abstract idea of generating file . The claim recites the limitations of wherein the data and file generation are carried out via at least one API , which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ammanabrolu et al. (Guided Neural Language Generation for Automated Storytelling , Published on August 1, 2019 ) . As to clam 6 Ammanabrolu teaches a method for generating files wherein in a first step, existing data is filtered, prepared, and cleaned, and subsequently a training corpus tailored to meet desired/intended results is produced from the prepared data, wherein the filtered and prepared data are normalized ( section 5 and section 6: for story generation, we select a single genre: science fiction ( scifi ). The data was pre-processed to simplify alien names in order to aid named entity recognition. Then the sentences were split, partially following the "split-and-pruned" methodology . Sentences were split at S-bars and conjunctions separating S's, and the subject of the sentence was re-inserted in the new sentences. We scraped long-running science fiction TV show plot summaries from the fandom wiki service wikia . com. After the data is fully prepared, it is split in a 8: 1: l ratio to create the training, validation, and testing sets respectively. Each of the models in the event-to-sentence ensemble are trained on the training set in the scifi corpus. The exact training details for each of the models are as described above. ) As to claim 7 Ammanabrolu teaches wherein the data are disassembled, represented, compared, and processed as individual tokens or digits for normalization ( section 5 ) . As to claim 8 Ammanabrolu teaches wherein new data is generated from the training by means of the normalized data ( section 5 ) . As to claim 9 Ammanabrolu teaches wherein the files are texts, audio formats, or videos ( section 5 ) . As to claim 10 Ammanabrolu teaches wherein the data and file generation are carried out via at least one API ( section 4 ) . As to claim 11 Ammanabrolu teaches wherein the data are disassembled, represented, compared, and processed as individual tokens or digits for normalization ( section 5 ) . As to claim 12 Ammanabrolu teaches wherein new data is generated from the training by means of the normalized data ( section 5 ) . As to claim 13 Ammanabrolu teaches wherein the files are texts, audio formats, or videos ( section 5 ) . As to claim 14 Ammanabrolu teaches wherein the data and file generation are carried out via at least one API ( section 4 ) . Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context. Conclusion The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MD I UDDIN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3559 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm . 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 Sherief Badawi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-9782 . 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. /MD I UDDIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169