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
The 102 and 103 rejections are hereby withdrawn based on amendment and applicant’s arguments. Applicant's arguments filed on 09/29/2025, as related to the 101 SME rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The following is a response to Applicant’s arguments vis-à-vis the 101 SME rejection:
Applicant’s assertion that the claims do not recite a “mental process” under Step 2A, Prong One
Applicant argues that generating and processing a “structured prompt template” with a “state prediction model” cannot be performed in the human mind, and therefore the claims do not fall within the “mental process” category (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), particularly in light of the August 2025 Memo.
Response:a) Under the USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) and October 2023 Update, a “mental process” exception covers not only what can literally be done in one’s head, but also methods that are the functional equivalent of mental steps—namely steps of “observing,” “categorizing,” “summarizing,” “recalling,” and “deciding.” Even if a “state prediction model” is recited, the claimed steps of (1) generating summaries, (2) assigning intent/domain/segment labels, and (3) updating those labels are still abstract mental operations or organizational rules.
b) The mere recitation of a “model” or “computer implementation” does not automatically remove a limitation from the mental-process grouping if the step remains essentially one of summarizing or labeling information. Here, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, machine-implemented summarization and labeling remains functionally equivalent to a human reading, summarizing, and classifying dialogue.
c) Regarding the August 2025 Memo’s statement made by applicant, the claims remain within the mental-process exception because they recite no technical detail showing how the model transcends mere abstract categorization.
Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process under Step 2A, Prong One.
Applicant’s contention that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a “practical application” under Step 2A, Prong Two
Applicant asserts that (a) the model and prompt-template steps improve natural language processing, (b) the Specification describes benefits, and © these benefits constitute a practical application that “improves the functioning of a computer or another technology” (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)).
Response:a) To meet Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim must integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by reciting additional elements that (1) impose a meaningful limitation on the abstract idea, and (2) show a specific technological improvement. Here, “structured prompt template,” “state prediction model,” and “near real-time” operation are merely generic computer-implementation details. They do not specify how the computer or model is improved—no specialized architecture, no improved algorithmic steps, no novel memory or data-processing technique is claimed.
b) The Specification’s description of benefits does not substitute for claim language reciting a specific improvement in computer technology. Under USPTO guidance, alleged benefits in the specification alone cannot establish that the claim integrates the abstract idea into a technological improvement when the claims themselves recite only generic computing steps.
c) Simply using a known natural language model in a generic way (e.g., “apply LLM to produce summaries and labels”) does not transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The claims lack any particularized application that would constitute a practical application.
Therefore, the claims fail Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applicant’s assertion under Step 2B that the rejection lacks evidence that the elements are “well-understood, routine, and conventional”
Applicant contends that, because the Office has not supplied evidence of routine use, the combination of elements (e.g., the “state prediction model”) should qualify as an inventive concept.
Response:a) Under MPEP § 2106.05(d), an Examiner need not provide formal evidence for well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components when those components are described in the specification as generic and when they are known in the art. Here, “structured prompt template,” “structured output,” “XML format,” and “large language model” are all well-known, off-the-shelf techniques in the field of NLP. The Specification itself acknowledges that these are standard tools.
b) The claims do not recite any specific, unconventional arrangement or novel parameterization of the model, nor do they recite a custom neural-network architecture or improved data structure that departs from routine ML practice. In the absence of any factual allegations that these elements are unconventional, the Examiner properly treats them as conventional.
c) The combination of generic data-formatting steps, mental processes (summarizing, labeling), and applying a known LLM does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. There is no clear language in the claim that yields a technical improvement to computer performance or to LLM operation.
Thus, under Step 2B, the claims lack an inventive concept. As such, claims 1–20 remain directed to abstract mental and organizational processes implemented on generic computer components, without any meaningful integration into a practical application or an inventive concept under the USPTO’s Step 2A/2B framework. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is sustained.
If Applicant submits specific factual evidence or claim amendments that detail non-conventional model architectures, data structures, or prompt-engineering methods that demonstrably improve computer performance, the Examiner will reconsider.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, specifically, the mental process of observing, summarizing, categorizing, and labeling conversational content, without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (a judicial exception — an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
I. Statutory Category (Step 1)
The claims are directed to methods (processes). Processes are enumerated statutory classes under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility inquiry.
II. Step 2A — Prong One: Judicial Exception (Abstract Idea)
The claims are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, analyzing, summarizing, labeling, and updating information — activities that are fundamental human practices and mental processes or conventional information processing.
Claim 1 (analysis):
“obtaining and analyzing a first turn of a dialogue in near real-time, the dialogue being an open-domain dialogue;”
Recites gathering and analyzing information (a dialogue turn). This is an abstract information-collection and mental/clerical step.
“processing the first turn of the dialogue to generate a turn summary and a set of state labels, the processing comprising: generating a structured prompt template for a state prediction model based on the first turn of the dialogue; and generating a structured output using the state prediction model based on the structured prompt template, the structured output including the turn summary and the set of state labels;”
Recites generating summaries and labels (information organization/categorization). Generating a template and using a prediction model to produce formatted output are procedural specifications for organizing information — abstract processes and mental operations.
“for each dialogue turn, obtaining a subsequent turn of the dialogue in near real-time; updating the structured prompt template based on the subsequent turn of the dialogue; and generating a subsequent structured output using the state prediction model, the subsequent structured output comprising at least one of an updated turn summary and an updated set of labels for the dialogue.”
Recites iterative updating of organized information and reapplication of labeling/summarization — abstract information processing and updating steps.
Claim 14 (Analysis):
“obtaining and analyzing a dialogue, the dialogue being an open-domain dialogue;”
Recites collection and analysis of data — abstract information-gathering and processing.
“determining a segmentation prediction using a state prediction model by segmenting the dialogue into one or more segments that are topically related;”
Recites segmenting dialogue into topic-related segments — organizing information into topical groups (abstract).
“determining a user intent and a dialogue domain for each segment, each segment including contiguous subsequences of one or more dialogue turns that are topically related;”
Recites assigning labels (intent, domain) to segments — categorization/labeling (abstract).
“generating a structured output based on the segmentation prediction using the state prediction model, the structured output including a turn summary and state labels for each dialogue turn; obtaining a subsequent turn of the dialogue in near real-time; updating the segmentation prediction based on the subsequent turn of the dialogue; and generating a subsequent structured output based on the updated segmentation prediction using the state prediction model, the subsequent structured output including at least one of an updated turn summary and updated state labels for the dialogue.”
Recites generating formatted output and updating it iteratively — abstract information processing and formatting.
The claimed subject matter, viewed as a whole, is directed to abstract ideas (information organization, analysis, summarization, categorization and updating). The recited use of a “state prediction model,” “structured prompt template,” “structured output,” and “near real-time” processing are high-level functional or result-oriented limitations that describe the abstract process of using computational tools to implement these ideas rather than concrete technological improvements to computer functionality.
III. Step 2A — Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recited computer-implemented elements (e.g., “state prediction model,” “structured prompt template,” “structured output,” “near real-time”) are described at a high level of generality and do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea to a specific practical application or technical improvement in computer technology.
“Near real-time” is a performance goal or desired result and, without further technical detail, does not supply a technical improvement to computing hardware or software.
The “state prediction model” is recited as a generic model (including a generative LLM/MLLM in claim-dependent language). The claims do not recite a specific, unconventional architecture, specific non-routine training, specialized hardware, or other technical implementation details showing how the model is different from generic computer implementation.
IV. Step 2B — Inventive Concept (Whether Additional Elements Individually or in Combination Amount to Significantly More)
The additional claim elements — i.e., generating/using structured prompt templates, producing structured outputs, using a state prediction model (LLM/MLLM), obtaining dialogue turns in near real-time, storing segmentation predictions, applying same labels across turns in a segment — amount to generic computer implementation of the abstract idea and do not add significantly more.
The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of the computer itself or an unconventional manner of implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Nor do they recite specific technical features that provide a non-routine solution to a technological problem.
Therefore, the additional elements do not transform the recited abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Regarding dependent claims 2-13, 15-20, the claims recite further details such as particular labels (segment boundary label, user intent label, dialogue domain label), types of instructions (segmentation instructions, PAR instructions), structured representation (XML), etc. These limitations, as drafted, appear to be conventional information-formatting, labeling, instruction content, or mental/clerical steps and do not provide the requisite significantly-more inventive concept. Accordingly, dependent claims do not overcome the rejection unless amended to include specific technical features showing a non-conventional technical improvement.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without reciting additional elements sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to provide an inventive concept. The dependent claims are also subject to the rejection for the reasons set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
The claims would be in condition of allowability once the 101 SME issue has been resolved.
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 PIERRE LOUIS DESIR whose telephone number is (571)272-7799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5:30PM.
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.
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.
/PIERRE LOUIS DESIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2659