DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Acknowledgments
Claims 4, 11, and 17 are cancelled.
Claims 1-3,5-10,12-16 and 18-20 are pending.
Applicant did not provide information disclosure statement.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/2026 with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 9-10
While Applicant continues to disagree that claim 1 recites a judicial exception at all, any alleged abstract idea included in claim 1 is integrated into a practical application, namely causing an improvement to the technology of using AI chatbots to provide text-based recommendations from an incoming data set.
and providing the text recommendation when the user input query is subsequently received, the latency and performance of the AI chatbot-provided text recommendation is significantly improved over conventional solutions, thereby constituting a technical improvement
Second, by using the fact significance score to identify the subset of priority facts from the data set and combining the priority facts with both the natural language template and the call-to-action query, a superior query to the AI chatbot is created,
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are not solving a technical problem but a business problem. Providing recommendations based on data is not a technical problem. In addition, the Applicant’s specification states in para 0002,This disclosure relates generally to the technical field of computer-implemented methods for linking data sets with visualizations. Specifically, the disclosure describes automatically generating natural language queries and chatbot-assisted responses to the queries on various interfaces in response to an analysis of the data set, this shows the claims are merely addressing the problem of linking data sets and generating queries and responses which is also not a technical problem. A technical problem and solution is seen in the court case of McRO. The patents in McRO were an improvement on 3-D animation wherein the prior art comprised that "for each keyframe, the artist would look at the screen and, relying on her judgment, manipulate the character model until it looked right — a visual and subjective process." Thus, the patents in McRO aimed to automate a 3-D animator's tasks, specifically, determining when to set keyframes and setting those keyframes.
In addition, the AI chatbot is merely used as a tool to carry out an abstract idea step of providing a text recommendation. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The AI chatbot is merely a black box where data is inputted and a text recommendation is outputted. The Applicant does not provide details of the inner workings of this AI chatbot. In addition, identifying and combining priority facts is merely manipulation of data and making a better query is not technical improvement, but rather an improvement nested in the abstract idea of a mental process.
Applicant argues on page 10
Furthermore, quoting paragraph [0002] of the Instant Application Specification to assert that claim l is directed to "linking data sets with visualizations" is misleading and erroneous. While Applicant's Specification describes visualizations associated with data sets, claim 1 is directed towards a different aspect, improving the technology of using AI chatbots to provide text-based recommendations from an incoming data set, that is tangentially related to "linking data sets with visualizations" at best.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Citing para 0002 is not misleading or erroneous. The Applicant’s specification states in para 0002 This disclosure relates generally to the technical field of computer-implemented methods for linking data sets with visualizations. Specifically, the disclosure describes automatically generating natural language queries and chatbot-assisted responses to the queries on various interfaces in response to an analysis of the data set. Stating what the Applicant recites is not erroneous since para 0002 sets up the problem the claimed invention will address.
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 1-3, 5-10,12-16 and 18-20 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 than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of subject matter eligibility for whether the claims fall within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1-3, 5-10,12-16 and 18-20 are directed to non-transitory computer readable storage medium, system, and method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1-3, 5-10,12-16 and 18-20 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 8 and 14 recite the limitations of
Generating…observed facts from numeric-type data columns of a data set received…each observed fact being a data structure that includes an amount of change of a corresponding numeric-type data column over a predetermined period of time; identifying…a subset of priority observed facts from the generated observed facts, the priority observed facts being identified based on a plurality of priority factors, each priority factor having a value assigned to the observed fact; combining…one of the priority observed facts with a natural language template …the natural language template comprising a textual statement with placeholder strings, the combining comprising replacing one or more of the placeholder strings with values from the one of the priority observed facts to generate a populated natural language template; augmenting…the populated natural language template with a selected call to action query, the call to action query being selected based on a received user explanation type; transmitting…the augmented natural language template…and transmitting…the augmented natural language template… to be transmitted…the text recommendation providing information responsive to the format and values contained within the augmented natural language template.
With respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 10/27/2025, the claims further state
a fact significance score that is determined for each observed fact, the fact significance score being based on…causing…to be displayed
With respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 2/18/2026, the claims further state
prior to receiving a user input query relating to the one of the priority
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover the steps of generating, identifying, combining, determining, replacing, augmenting, receiving, and transmitting data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of a system and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, the claim language encompasses simply generating observed facts, identifying a subset of facts from the observed facts, combining the subset of facts with a natural language template, augmenting the natural language template, transmitting the natural language template to determine a text recommendation, and transmitting the text recommendation. The claims also give additional details on the concept of combining by having the abstract idea step of replacing data values. In addition, the claimed invention recites the abstract idea step of determining a variable such as a fact significance score and displaying data. These steps are mere data manipulation steps that can be done without the use of a computer. A user is able to determine facts, determine a score, combine the facts with a template, augment the template, and transmit the template with respect to determining a text recommendation.
The claims recite identifying observed facts, the observed facts being data structures that track a business metric (Specification para 0062). The business metric can also include KPIs (Specification para 0038). Tracking business metrics is considered business management. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (sales activity, fundamental economic principles or practices; business relations). It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components does not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of server, client device, network, template database, display device, user device, cache database, system, processor, artificial intelligence chatbot service, and non-transitory computer-readable medium.
The claims also recite insignificant extra solution activity such as storing data as seen here storing the text recommendation in a server cache database; The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim.
These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. 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.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further what the priority observed factors are based on such as fact significant score.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
Method, however a method is not considered a practical application.
Claim 1 further states client device, network, server, display device, template database, cache database, user device, and artificial intelligence chatbot service
Claim 8 recites system, processor, non-transitory computer-readable medium, client device, network, server, display device, template database, cache database, user device, and artificial intelligence chatbot service.
Claim 14 recites non-transitory computer readable storage medium, processor, client device, network, server, display device, template database, cache database, user device, and artificial intelligence chatbot service.
In addition, the additional element of storing data is merely a step that is seen as well‐understood, routine, and conventional function. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, these functions include storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant specification states a general-purpose computer in para 0042.
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states a general-purpose computer as seen in para 0042. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-3,5-10,12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Agrawal (US20210365643A1) Discloses a method of generating natural language outputs may include accessing a model of a system, where the system may be represented by a hierarchy of nodes in a data structure, and nodes in the hierarchy of nodes may include time series of data.
Raux (US20190205382A1) Discloses techniques for personalizing natural language generation by conversational agents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625