CTNF 18/457,794 CTNF 84717 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. As per claim 1: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “generating, utilizing a sentence classification machine learning model, aspect labels for the sentences of the transcript, wherein the aspect labels correspond to a plurality of aspects,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to a classification or tag indicating a topic for the sentence. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “organizing the sentences based on the aspect labels,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “organizing” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to which sentences to group together based on having the same aspect label. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “generating, utilizing a summary machine learning model, a summary of the transcript for each aspect of the plurality of aspects from the organized sentences,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming as to how to summarize all the sentences in the transcript about a particular topic. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). For the purposes of evaluating whether the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea or is significantly more than an abstract idea, these recited abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely summarizing a transcript. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). The abstract idea of summarizing a transcript is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element, “accessing a transcript comprising sentences,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). As an ordered combination, the invention is directed to mere instruction to apply the exception of summarizing a transcript on a computer because the computer is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions: The additional element, “accessing a transcript comprising sentences,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea that the claim is directed to because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC , 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 2: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “wherein generating, utilizing the sentence classification machine learning model, the aspect labels for the sentences of the transcript comprises predicting, for a sentence, probabilities that the sentence corresponds with each aspect of the plurality of aspects,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “predicting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to how to summarize all the sentences in the transcript about a particular topic. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 3: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “associating an aspect label with the sentence that has a corresponding probability over a threshold probability,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “associating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to whether the probability is over a threshold. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 4: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “wherein organizing the sentences based on the aspect labels comprises merging sentences with a matching aspect label and associating a token for the aspect label with the merged sentences,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “merging” encompasses a person forming a judgment to summarize sentences together while keeping track what topic is being summarized. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 5: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “wherein generating, utilizing the summary machine learning model, the summary of the transcript for each aspect of the plurality of aspects from the organized sentences comprises generating a first summary, utilizing the summary machine learning model, for a first aspect based on a first subset of the sentences from the transcript associated with a first aspect label for the first aspect,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the content of the summary. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 6: The abstract idea of summarizing a transcript is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element, “wherein generating, utilizing the summary machine learning model, the summary of the transcript for each aspect of the plurality of aspects from the organized sentences comprises providing merged sentence groups to the sentence classification machine learning model to generate a plurality of aspect summaries,” is mere instruction to apply the abstract idea of generating a plurality of aspect summaries on a computer using a machine learning model as a tool because the machine learning model is invoked to perform the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(f). As an ordered combination, the invention is directed to mere instruction to apply the exception of summarizing a transcript on a computer because the computer is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are mere instruction to apply an exception, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions: The abstract idea, “wherein generating, utilizing the summary machine learning model, the summary of the transcript for each aspect of the plurality of aspects from the organized sentences comprises providing merged sentence groups to the sentence classification machine learning model to generate a plurality of aspect summaries,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification ¶¶ [0049]-[0050] (“the sentence classification machine learning model 206 comprises a machine learning model in the form of a neural network. . . in some embodiments, a neural network includes a convolutional neural network, a recurrent neural network (e.g., a long short-term memory neural network), a generative adversarial neural network, a graph neural network, a multi-layer perceptron, a transformer-based network, or a diffusion neural network”), in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A). As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea that the claim is directed to because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC , 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 7: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “combining the plurality of aspect summaries to generate the summary of the transcript,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “combining” encompasses a person forming a judgment that the summaries should be combined. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “ordering the aspect summaries based on an order of appearance in the transcript,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “ordering” encompasses a person forming a judgment to which summary comes first. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 8: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “learn parameters of a sentence classification machine learning model utilizing a pseudo-labelled training dataset,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation, i.e., calculating the parameters using an algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “generate aspect labels corresponding to the sentences utilizing the sentence classification machine learning model,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to a classification or tag indicating a topic for the sentence. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “merge sentences with matching sentence classifications and associating tokens corresponding to the aspect labels to the merged sentences,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “merging” encompasses a person forming a judgment to summarize sentences together while keeping track what topic is being summarized. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “learn parameters of a summary machine learning model utilizing the merged sentences and associated tokens based on target summaries,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation, i.e., calculating the parameters using an algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). For the purposes of evaluating whether the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea or is significantly more than an abstract idea, these recited abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely using machine learning to summarize transcripts. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B); see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. , 134 F.4th 1205, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2025). The abstract idea of using machine learning to summarize transcripts is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of memory devices and processors are generic computer components. MPEP § 2106.05(b). As an ordered combination, the invention is mere instruction to apply the abstract idea of using machine learning to summarize transcripts on a computer because the computer is invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 9: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “wherein the one or more processors configured to cause the system to learn parameters of the sentence classification machine learning model utilizing weak supervision,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation, i.e., calculating the parameters using a weak supervision algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 10: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “wherein the one or more processors configured to cause the system to learn parameters of the sentence classification machine learning model utilizing a training dataset of dialogue with pseudo-labeling,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation, i.e., calculating the parameters using a pseudo-labeling algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 11: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “generate the aspect labels based on the embeddings utilizing a pseudo-labelling method,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation, i.e., calculating the aspect labels using a pseudo-labeling algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “aggregate the sentences and corresponding aspect labels to generate a training dataset of dialogue with pseudo-labelling,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “aggregating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what purpose a machine learning model algorithm will be used. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). For the purposes of evaluating whether the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea or is significantly more than an abstract idea, these recited abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely using machine learning to summarize transcripts. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B); see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. , 134 F.4th 1205, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2025). The additional element, “extract, from a database of transcripts, meeting transcripts and corresponding summaries,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional element, “provide the meeting transcripts and the corresponding summaries to a language embedding model to generate embeddings for sentences in the meeting transcripts,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). As an ordered combination, the invention is mere instruction to apply the abstract idea on a computer using a computer as a tool because the computer is merely invoked to perform the abstract idea, and merely uses machine learning in a new environment. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 12: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “input the training dataset of dialogue to a sentence classification machine learning model,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation, i.e., a step of a machine learning training algorithm to specify an input. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “utilize the sentence classification machine learning model to identify predicted aspect labels for the training dataset of dialogue,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation, i.e., a step of a machine learning training algorithm to calculate an aspect label. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “update the sentence classification machine learning model to select the aspect labels by comparing the predicted aspect labels to the pseudo-labelling using a loss from a loss function,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation, i.e., a step of a machine learning training algorithm to calculate a loss function. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 13: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “organize the sentences based on the aspect labels by merging sentences with matching aspect labels utilizing aspect tokens into merged sentence groups,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “merging” encompasses a person forming a judgment to summarize sentences together while keeping track what topic is being summarized. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “provide the merged sentence groups to the sentence classification machine learning model to generate an aspect summary,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming as to how to summarize all the sentences in the transcript about a particular topic. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 14: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “combine aspect summaries to generate a summary of the transcript,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “combining” encompasses a person forming a judgment that the summaries should be combined. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “order the aspect summaries based on an order of appearance in the transcript,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “ordering” encompasses a person forming a judgment to which summary comes first. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 15: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “generating, utilizing a sentence classification machine learning model, aspect labels for the sentences of the transcript, wherein the aspect labels correspond to a plurality of aspects,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to a classification or tag indicating a topic for the sentence. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “organizing the sentences based on the aspect labels,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “organizing” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to which sentences to group together based on having the same aspect label. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “generating, utilizing a summary machine learning model, a summary of the transcript for each aspect of the plurality of aspects from the organized sentences,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming as to how to summarize all the sentences in the transcript about a particular topic. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). For the purposes of evaluating whether the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea or is significantly more than an abstract idea, these recited abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely summarizing a transcript. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). The abstract idea of summarizing a transcript is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element, “receiving a transcript comprising sentences,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). As an ordered combination, the invention is directed to mere instruction to apply the exception of summarizing a transcript on a computer because the computer is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions: The additional element, “receiving a transcript comprising sentences,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea that the claim is directed to because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC , 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 16: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “wherein generating, utilizing the sentence classification machine learning model, the aspect labels for the sentences of the transcript comprises utilizing a weakly supervised sentence classification machine learning model trained with a training dataset of dialogue with pseudo-labeling,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “predicting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to how to summarize all the sentences in the transcript about a particular topic. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 17: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “wherein generating, utilizing the summary machine learning model, the summary of the transcript for each aspect of the plurality of aspects from the organized sentences comprises generating a first summary of the transcript for a first aspect and generating a second summary of the transcript for a second aspect,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to how to summarize the transcript for a first topic and how to summarize the transcript for a second topic. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 18: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “generating the first summary, utilizing the summary machine learning model, for the first aspect based on a first subset of the sentences from the transcript associated with a first aspect label for the first aspect,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to how to summarize the transcript for a first topic. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “generating the second summary, utilizing the summary machine learning model, for the second aspect based on a second subset of the sentences from the transcript associated with a second aspect label for the second aspect,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to how to summarize the transcript for a second topic. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 19: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “wherein organizing the sentences based on the aspect labels comprises merging sentences with a matching aspect label and associating a token for the aspect label with the merged sentences,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “merging” encompasses a person forming a judgment to summarize sentences together while keeping track what topic is being summarized. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 20: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “predicting for a sentence a probability that the sentence corresponds with an aspect of the plurality of aspects,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “predicting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to how to summarize all the sentences in the transcript about a particular topic. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “associating an aspect label with each sentence that has a probability for the aspect label over a threshold probability,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “associating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to whether the probability is over a threshold. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. Conclusion The prior art teaches generating, using a machine learning model, aspect labels for sentences of a document for a single aspect label (“the set of sentences that are relevant to the regulation”), organizing the sentences based on the aspect label (“extract a portion of the set”), and generating, using a second machine learning model, a summary of the transcript for the single aspect label (“generate, from the portion of the set of sentences that was extracted, a summary of the regulation using a machine learning algorithm”). Sharpe et al., US 11,786.132 B2, claim 8. Modifying Sharpe to generate a plurality of aspect labels is impermissible hindsight reasoning. However, determining a topic for each sentence of a document, collecting all sentences for a topic together, and summarizing, for each topic, the topic’s collected sentences is an abstract idea, and therefore the invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3. 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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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. WILLIAM SPIELER Primary Examiner Art Unit 2159 /WILLIAM SPIELER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/457,794 Page 2 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/457,794 Page 3 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/457,794 Page 4 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/457,794 Page 5 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/457,794 Page 6 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/457,794 Page 7 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/457,794 Page 8 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/457,794 Page 9 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/457,794 Page 10 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/457,794 Page 11 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/457,794 Page 12 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/457,794 Page 13 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/457,794 Page 14 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/457,794 Page 15 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/457,794 Page 16 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/457,794 Page 17 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/457,794 Page 18 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/457,794 Page 19 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/457,794 Page 20 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/457,794 Page 21 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/457,794 Page 22 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/457,794 Page 23 Art Unit: 2159