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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is filed in response to the amendment filed on 03/30/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims as amended fail to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections. The addition of a portal and a receiving engine as recited in claims 1, 14, and 20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical idea. The portal can be interpreted as any interface to display a query and it’s response. The addition of the response engine fails to give any insight as to what is actually being performed by the response engine. Both of these additional limitations can be directed towards insignificant pre-solution and post-solution activity and used as an input/output tool for performing mental activity.
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 without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 14, and 20 relate to the statutory category of method/process and machine/apparatus. The independent claims 1, 14, and 20 recite “receiv(ing), via a portal, an explanation request comprising a feature and a machine learning (ML) prediction corresponding to the feature; obtain(ing) context information based on the explanation request; generat(ing), using a response engine comprising, a first generative ML model instance applied to the feature and the ML prediction, at least two response variations; determin(ing), using the response engine, a second generative ML model instance applied to the context information and the at least two response variations, a ranking of the at least two response variations according to relevance; provid(ing), via the portal, an explanation of the ML prediction based on the ranking of the at least two response variations; and automatically perform(ing) a physical and/or logical operation based on the explanation.
The limitations of claims 1, 14, or 20 of “receiv(ing)…”, “obtain(ing)…”, “generat(ing)…”, “determin(ing)…”, “provid(ing)…”, and, “…perform(ing)…” as drafted covers mental activity. More specifically, for claim 1, a human, after receiving a request for a prediction, can come up with at least two alternative predictions for the topic being asked about. The human knowing from previous experience, how the different predictions will rank. The human will then perform functionality based on the ranking and why the prediction was selected.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 14 and 20 recite the additional elements of “processing unit”, “memory”, and “processor” which are recited generally in the specification. For example, in paragraph [0047] of the as filed specification, there is a description of using a general purpose computing system. 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.
Also, the additional elements of “portal”, “generative ML model” and “response engine” in claims 1, 14, and 20 are recited generally in the specification. For example, in paragraph [0022] of the as filed specification there is description of a user interface, such as an analysis portal. The user interface as recited is being used by a user to input/output information about the query. This additional limitation in the claim is directed towards insignificant pre-solution and post-solution activity. In paragraph [0015] of the as filed specification, there are examples of a generative ML model. However, the structure disclosed in the specification has not been incorporated into the claims. Without the structure, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In paragraph [0034] of the as filed specification there is a description of a response engine. However, there is no insight given as to what is actually being done by response engine. It appears to the examiner that the response engine is being used by the user to input/output about the query. This additional limitation in the claim is directed towards insignificant pre-solution and post-solution activity. 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer as a general computer is noted. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 2 and 15, the claims relate to selecting the ML model. The claim relates to a mental activity of how the alternative predictions are determined. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claims 3 and 16, the claims relate to performing the function determined by the prediction and why the prediction was selected. The claims relate to a mental activity of determining why function needs to be performed and performing the function.
With respect to claims 4 and 17, the claims relate to modifying the prediction. The claims relate to a mental activity of changing the prediction based on what the parameters are. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claims 5-7, 18, and 19, the claims relate to preventing an unauthorized function. The claims relate to a mental activity of making sure that unauthorized access is not given based on the prediction. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 8, the claim relates to determining alternative predictions and why. The claim relates to a mental activity of why and how there are more than one prediction. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claims 9 and 10, the claims relate to determining if the highest ranking relevant response meets the criteria. If not, determine two more responses. The claims relates to a mental activity of going thru the responses until they meet the criteria. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 11, the claim relates to determining the similarity between the ranked responses. The claim relates to a mental activity of determining how the ranked responses are related and similar to each other. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claims 12 and 13, the claims relate to how to generate the relevant responses. The claims relate to a mental activity of how the relevant responses are presented to the user. No additional limitations are present.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowed if the 35 USC 101 rejections above are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 1, 14, and 20 of the current application teach similar subject matter as the prior art of Araujo et al. (US 10,733,292), Kursun (US 2021/0042420), and Shao et al. (US 2022/0400131). The prior art alone or in combination teaches “receiving, via a portal, an explanation request comprising a feature and a machine learning (ML) prediction corresponding to the feature; obtaining context information based on the explanation request; generating, using a response engine comprising, a first generative ML model instance applied to the feature and the ML prediction, at least two response variations; and automatically performing a physical and/or logical operation based on the explanation” as recited in claims 1 and 20 and “a processing unit; a memory coupled to the processing unit and configured to store executable instructions which, upon execution by the processing unit, are configured to cause the processing unit to: receive, via a portal, an explanation request comprising a feature and a machine learning (ML) prediction corresponding to the feature; obtain context information based on the explanation request; generate, using a response engine comprising, a first generative ML model instance applied to the feature and the ML prediction, at least two response variations; and automatically perform a physical and/or logical operation based on the explanation”.
The prior art alone or in combination fails to teach “determining, using the response engine comprising a second generative ML model instance applied to the context information and the at least two response variations, a ranking of the at least two response variations according to relevance; providing, via the portal, an explanation of the prediction based on the ranking of the at least two response variations” as recited in claims 1 and 20 and “determine, using the response engine comprising a second generative ML model instance applied to the context information and the at least two response variations, a ranking of the at least two response variations according to relevance; provide an explanation of the prediction based on the ranking of the at least two response variations” as recited in claim 14.
Claims 2-13, and 15-19 would be allowed for being dependent on an allowable base claim if the 35 USC 101 rejections above are overcome.
Cited Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ingold et al. (US 2025/0190425) discloses AI based interactive searches based on user queries data and a plurality of Large Language Models (LLMs).
Hamid et al. (US 2025/0217371) discloses automatically generating content for a generative content interface of a collaboration platform.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
/SATWANT K SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2653
Prosecution Insights