DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Amendment
2. In response to the amendment filed 15 September 2025, claims 1-12 remain pending.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “thea” in section (A), and “leastthe” in section (I). These appear to be typos.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
4. 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 7 recite a method for generating an assessment content element comprising:
(A) receiving a user input;
B) analyzing at least one aspect of the received user input to formulate a set of prompts;
(C) identifying a content element from a content database based on the user input;
(D) obtaining an attribute that characterizes the identified content element;
(E) executing steps E-1 through E-3 iteratively N times, wherein N initially has a value of 1 and a value of at least 1. and wherein the iteration proceeds until the assessment criterion is met at the end of the Nth iteration, to obtain N returned portions of the assessment content element:
(E-1) transmitting a creation request for at least an Nth portion of the assessment content element based on the formulated set of prompts, the identified content element, and the obtained attribute value;
(E-2) receiving an Nth returned portion comprising at least a portion of the assessment content element, said Nth returned portion being generated to meet the assessment criterion; and
(E-3) processing by the first processing unit to determine if the Nth returned the received response to extract a specified portion of the assessment content element meets the assessment criterion; and
wherein if the Nth returned portion of the assessment content element meets the assessment criterion the method proceeds to step (F), and if the Nth returned portion of the assessment content element does not meet the assessment criterion, increasing N by one and continuing the iteration of steps E-1 through E-3:
(F) aggregating the N returned portions of the assessment content element to form the assessment content element;
(G) assigning at least one metadata tag reflective of the obtained attribute value to the assessment content element to facilitate subsequent analysis of the assessment content element; and
(H) storing the assessment content element and the at least one metadata tag in the content database; and/or
(I) transmitting the assessment content element to an assessment content delivery system for delivery to at least the user interface.
The limitations of receiving and analyzing a user input, identifying a content element, obtaining an attribute value, transmitting a creation request, receiving an assessment content element, determining if the element meets the criterion, aggregating, assigning metadata tags, and storing and/or transmitting the assessment content element, as drafted, constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the method is performed by first and second “processing units” via interaction with an “AI model”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processing unit” and “AI model” language, “receiving”, “analyzing”, “identifying”, “obtaining”, “transmitting”, “receiving”, “processing”, “aggregating”, “assigning” and “storing” or “transmitting” in the context of these claims encompasses a user manually receiving input from another user, analyzing it and generating attributes as a purely mental process, iteratively constructing the assessment content elements by transmitting requests and receiving responses for example to another person or to a database, and processing and storing or transmitting the content elements. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite that the method is performed by first and second “processing units”, which amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims further recite the method is performed via interaction with a computational or generative AI model, including transmitting the request to the AI model and receiving a response from the AI model. This AI model is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than utilizing a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Alternatively, this use of a generic AI model amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h) Accordingly, 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do 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 elements of implementing the method using processing units interacting with a generic AI model amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-12 recite the same abstract idea as in their respective parent claims and only recite additional aspects of the abstract idea being performed via interaction with the generic AI model (determining relevance of content elements based on vectorized representations, using one of a set of generic machine learning techniques, specifying the type of content elements, etc.), Therefore these claims do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 15 September 2025 with respect to the section 101 rejection of claims 1-12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant points to the first and second processing units that communicate, and a database that stores content elements, being utilized to perform the claimed steps. However, for the reasons detailed in the rejection above, this amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea of assessment content element creation utilizing generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the drawing objections, section 112 rejections, and section 102/103 rejections, in view of the corresponding amendments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. These objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights