Introduction
1. This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 1/22/2026. Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
New Ground of Rejection
4. The present application is in condition for allowance if the rejection under 35 USC 101 is overcome. The Examiner contacted Applicant’s representative several times and left several messages in an attempt to work out an Examiner’s Amendment to place the case in condition for allowance. The Examiner was not able to speak with Applicant’s representative to work out such an Amendment.
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.
5. Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent Claims 1, 12, and 16 recite various limitations that, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. memory, processors), can be performed in the human mind or with simple tools. The claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover the concept of evaluating whether or not a statement generated by a language model is acceptable or not based on calculating 2 scores, an SCM score and an ATE score (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III). There is no detail in the claims regarding the calculation of these scores. Thus, these scores could be calculated with a pen and paper, or in the human mind, and the decision could be made based on the two scores in a human mind. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, which is one of the judicial exceptions.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recite elements in the form of “a system." These elements are used to perform the claimed methods and steps and are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not include subject matter that could not be performed by a human, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the generic computing elements to perform the claimed elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, this claim further limit the elements of claim 1 by reciting identifying a first token and a second token in a second statement causing the second statement to be associated with the attribute, wherein the second statement is generated by the LM. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by simple tools, such as pen and paper. Similar to claim 1 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, this claim further limit the elements of claim 1 by reciting replacing the first token in the second statement with a first counterfactual to create a first partially modified statement; and determining a second probability of the first partially modified statement being associated with the attribute. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by simple tools, such as pen and paper. Similar to claim 1 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, this claim further limit the elements of claim 1 by reciting replacing the first token in the second statement with a second counterfactual to create a second partially modified statement; and determining a third probability of the second partially modified statement being associated with the attribute. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by simple tools, such as pen and paper. Similar to claim 1 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, this claim further limit the elements of claim 1 by reciting generating a first token-level ATE score based on an average of the second probability and the third probability, and storing the first token-level ATE score in a lookup table, wherein the first token-level ATE score is stored with the first token. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by simple tools, such as pen and paper. Similar to claim 1 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, this claim further limit the elements of claim 1 by reciting replacing the second token in the second statement with a third counterfactual to create a third partially modified statement; determining a fourth probability of the third partially modified statement being associated with the attribute; replacing the second token in the second statement with a fourth counterfactual to create a fourth partially modified statement; determining a fifth probability of the fourth partially modified statement being associated with the attribute; generating a second token-level ATE score based on an average of the fourth probability and the fifth probability, and storing the second token-level ATE score in the lookup table, wherein the second ATE score is stored with the second token. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by simple tools, such as pen and paper. Similar to claim 1 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, this claim further limit the elements of claim 1 by reciting compares the SCM score with a threshold value; and wherein in the event of response to the SCM score has a value being greater than the threshold value, the language model is identified as generating one or more determines that the first statement having an unacceptable first probability of being associated with the attribute; or in the event of response to the SCM score has a value less not being greater than the threshold value, the language model is identified as generating one or more determines that the first statement does not having an unacceptable first probability of being associated with the attribute. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by simple tools, such as pen and paper. Similar to claim 1 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 9, 15, and 19, these claims further limit the elements of claims 1, 12, and 16 by reciting the attribute indicates the undesired content is at least one of toxic, abusive, offensive, demeaning, malicious, biased, or harmful. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by simple tools, such as pen and paper. Similar to claim 1 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 9, 15, and 19 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 10, 20, and 21, these claims further limit the elements of claims 1, 12, and 16 by reciting the attribute indicates the undesired content is at least one of toxic, abusive, offensive, demeaning, malicious, biased, or harmful. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by simple tools, such as pen and paper. Similar to claim 1 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 10, 20, and 21 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, this claim further limit the elements of claim 1 by reciting the LM is a large language model. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by simple tools, such as pen and paper. Similar to claim 1 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 13 and 17, these claims further limit the elements of claims 12 and 16 by reciting generating, by the system, the vocabulary for the LM, wherein a respective token-level ATE score for the corresponding token is derived from one or more treatment effect (TE) scores determined for the respective corresponding token. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by simple tools, such as pen and paper. Similar to claim 1 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 13 and 17 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 14 and 18, these claims further limit the elements of claims 12 and 16 by reciting identifying, by the system, in the first statement a first token and a second token; identifying, by the system, a first token-level ATE score for the first token and a second token-level ATE score for the second token; generating, by the system, the SCM score for the first statement, wherein the SCM score is a combination of the first token-level ATE score and the second token-level ATE score; comparing, by the system, the SCM score with a threshold; response to the SCM score exceeding the threshold, determining, by the system, that the first statement has an unacceptable probability of association with the attribute; and in the event of response to the SCM score does not exceeding the threshold, determining, by the system, that the first statement has the acceptable probability of association with the attribute. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by simple tools, such as pen and paper. Similar to claim 1 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 14 and 18 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD TRACY whose telephone number is (571)272-8332. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on 571-272-7453. 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.
/EDWARD TRACY JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights