19DETAILED 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 .
Status
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 12/8/2025. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10-12, 14-17, 20 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 17 are amended. No claims have been added. Claims 3, 8, 9, 13, 18, 19, have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued “To achieve these advantages, the claimed embodiments are designed to leverage knowledge graphs that are designed to initially summarize a document in a manner that identifies question patterns reflected within the document. This operation is performed so that a subsequent chunking operation performed on the document preserves each of the question patterns in respective chunks. By performing this combination of operations, the embodiments beneficially enable a pre-trained language model (PLM) to operate on chunked input that is organized according to the identified question patterns. This then enhances the question predictive capability of the PLM.“ The claimed invention does not focus on a specific, improved technical process. The specification does not clearly define how the "knowledge graphs" and "chunking operations" are actually implemented. Because of this they do not constitute a specific technical solution to a technical problem they merely are directed to a, "computer-implemented, abstract, idea".
The applicant has argued “the claimed operations are not directed to mathematical operations, nor are they directed to organizing human behavior. Instead, the claimed operations are directed to various operations involving the generation of knowledge graphs, the chunking of a document, and the generation of predicted output. As such, the claimed embodiments should not be found to be abstract.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim involves the use of a pre-trained language model that is identified, generates a knowledge graph, and chunks the document using the knowledge graph. Generating a knowledge graph and organizing data i.e. chunking is akin to organizing information and a mental process or "method of organizing human activity" that falls under abstract ideas. Simply applying models to analyze, organize, and summarize text without improving the model or computer itself is not considered a technical improvement. The claims are do nothing more than analyzing and organizing data using software.
The applicant has argued “Even if they are found to be abstract, Applicant submits that the claimed embodiments incorporate a practical application and/or amount to something substantially more than the abstract idea. In particular, the claimed embodiments provide a technical improvement in the operation of a PLM. That is, the claimed embodiments directly improve the question predicting capability of the PLM by pre-processing the input provided to the PLM in a manner that achieves improved performance for the PLM. Such operations should be found to be either a practical application or something substantially more.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. It appears as though the language model is pre-trained and there isn’t any claimed improvement to the model. Applying a preexisting language model to a knowledge graph is not an improvement to the technology. It appears to be applying known technology to known technology.
The applicant has amended the claims to overcome the previous 112, second paragraph rejections. The previous 112, second paragraph rejections have been withdrawn.
The applicant has argued the previous 103 rejections. The applicant has amended the claims which required an updated prior art search. Upon careful review of the prior art, Pappu et al. (US 20180004718 A1) and Jungmeisteris et al. (US 20220374956 A1) do not teach or suggest the invention as a whole, particularly the combination in order of the limitations of identifying a PLM that is tasked with analyzing the document to generate a predicted question of the questioning entity; generating a knowledge graph for the document, wherein the knowledge graph summarizes the document in a manner that identifies the question patterns reflected within the document; chunking the document using the knowledge graph, wherein, as a result of chunking the document using the knowledge graph, the question patterns included within the document are preserved in respective chunks, and wherein the document is chunked based on a model size of the PLM; after the document has been chunked into the respective chunks, tasking the PLM to generate the predicted question of the questioning entity; and causing the PLM to generate the predicted question. These claimed limitations were are not found in the prior art in combination. Specifically, the combined teachings of the references do not disclose the required combination of PLM, knowledge graph features for generating the intended outcome, nor is there a reasonable motivation to combine them in a manner that achieves the claimed invention without the benefit of hindsight.
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, 2, 4-7, 10-12, 14-17, 20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10 are directed to a method and claims 11- 12, 14-17, 20 are directed to a non-transitory storage medium. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10-12, 14-17, 20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim(s) recite(s) (mathematical relationships/formulas, mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity). Specifically the independent claims recite:
(a) mental process: as drafted, the claim recites the limitation of preparing a document, performing a sentiment analysis, topic generation process, question generation process, another sentiment analysis, and updating a list of topics which 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. That is, other than reciting “by one or more hardware processors,” nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “by one or more hardware processors” language, the claim encompasses the user manually performing a sentiment analysis and updating a list of topics. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processing device does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This limitation is a mental process.
(c) certain methods of organizing human activity: The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention is a method that allows for users to perform sentiment analysis on a document draft to update a list of topics related which is a method of managing interactions between people. According to the 2019 PEG, “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” includes social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
With the exception of the “using the at least one processor” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass an abstract idea directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.” Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, 10, 12, 14-17, 20 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 1, 11, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is a method that recites “a pre-trained language model.” Claim 11 is a non-transitory storage medium that recites “automated” limitations performed “therein instructions that are executable by one or more hardware processors to perform operations… a pre-trained language model.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, 10, 12, 14-17, 20, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 11 do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. As can be seen above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, Claim 1 is a method at most comprising various steps that are “automated.” Claim 1 is a method that recites “a pre-trained language model.” Claim 11 is a non-transitory storage medium that recites “automated” limitations performed “therein instructions that are executable by one or more hardware processors to perform operations… a pre-trained language model.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, 10, 12, 14-17, 20 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10-12, 14-17, 20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10-12, 14-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The applicant has amended claims 1 and 11 to include the language of “generates a set of predicted questions that the questioning entity is likely to subsequently ask the answering entity.” Although the applicant has support in the originally filed disclosure for asking questions and predicting behaviors, the applicant does not have support in the originally filed disclosure for generating a set of predicted questions that the questioning entity is likely to ask. Appropriate correction is required. The applicant has amended the claims to include the limitation of “generating a knowledge graph for the document, wherein the knowledge graph summarizes the document in a manner that identifies the question patterns reflected within the document.” Although the applicant has support in paragraph 72 of the originally filed disclosure for keeping track of questions pattern the applicant does not have support for the knowledge graph summarizes the document in a manner that identifies the question patterns reflected within the document. Appropriate correction is required.
The dependent claims inherit the rejection of the claim from which they depend.
Other pertinent prior art includes Pappu et al. (US 20180004718 A1) discloses providing facts related to user generated content, including comments posted on webpages. Jungmeisteris et al. (US 20220374956 A1) which discloses a dynamic, accurate, and timely customer sentiment analysis .Prieto (US 20140164036 A1) which discloses a program manager can monitor or track sentiment data related to a capital program. Blanchflower et al. (US 20160071119 A1) which discloses generating a proposed sentiment result associated with a document, the proposed sentiment result being generated based on a rule set applied to the document. Zhu et al. ( US 20220358594 A1) which discloses a machine learning model that can be trained to predict one or more financial indicators using earnings call transcripts augmented with counterfactual information.
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 JAMIE H AUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 7am-2pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270 5389. 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.
JAMIE H. AUSTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JAMIE H AUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625