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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/14/2023, 7/28/2024, 11/30/2024, 1/2/2025, 5/13/2025, 8/22/2025, 11/20/2025 and 1/3/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claim 18 is cancelled and claim 21 is newly added leaving claims 1-17 and 19-21 are pending in this application.
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 1-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims recite converting a user input and a conversational state into a vector, using the vector to lookup a response in a database, and transmitting the output to a client device, which is a mathematical concept which entails gathering data (the input & conversational state), then further receiving and transmitting the resulting output of the LLM (extra-solutional activity). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements in the claims are generic computing components, the extra-solutional data transmission and the LLM itself. The LLM merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements either are generic computer component performing generic computer functions, insignificant extra-solutional activity or merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
The dependent claims simply refine the abstract idea by making the process iterative, adding additional data to be gathered (conversational history, conversational goal) or specifying that the LLM must be trained on historical conversation. None of the limitations provide additional elements that either individually, or considered as an ordered sequence, cause the claims to be significantly more than the judicial exception or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 4/29/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a transitory signal have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a transitory signal has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 4/29/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 4/29/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to non-eligible subject matter have been fully considered and are not persuasive. First, the Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, prong 1, and despite the amended claim language, the Examiner holds that they are still directed to an abstract idea when examined as a whole. Adding that the input and conversation state are converted into a vector and the vector is used to find the most similar response in a database simply adds a mathematical concept to the abstract idea.
The Applicant then argues that the claims are eligible under Step 2A, prong 2 as being integrated into a practical application. The Examiner does not find this persuasive as the Applicant does not point out what additional element transforms the claims into a practical application and how it does so.
Likewise, the claim that the claims are eligible under Step 2B requires an additional element that amounts significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. The LLM in this case does no more than a simple processor would as it is comparing two vectors to generate a cosine similarity, which requires no generative capabilities at all. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Examiner Notes
The Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully considers the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant and require written authorization. Should the Applicant wish to communicate via e-mail, including the following paragraph in their response will allow the Examiner to do so:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Should e-mail communication be desired, the Examiner can be reached at Edwin.Leland@USPTO.gov
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN S LELAND III whose telephone number is (571)270-5678. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Hai Phan can be reached at 571-272-6338. 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.
/EDWIN S LELAND III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights