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
The Amendment filed 11/20/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-25 remain pending in the application. Claims 4, 10, and 16 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-14, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejection for claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, 17 - 25, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 15-17, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections for claims 1-3, 7-9, 13-15, 19-21 and 23-25 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejection, the Applicant asserts that the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea or mental process. The Applicant asserts that the claims, as amended and written, integrate the abstract concepts into a practical application, thus complying with Step 2A, prong two. The Applicant also asserts that the claims fail to recite a judicial exception because the alleged abstract ideas cannot all be practically performed in the human mind.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The independent claims, taken as a whole, is an abstract analysis of text groupings that are output from a language learning model. Each limitation within the independent claims can be performed by a human with pen and paper, save for the recitation of generic computer components. These extra 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 Applicant has not provided any substantial reasoning as to why the noted limitations are not mental activities, besides stating that they are not able to be performed. The Examiner also notes in the rejection noted below that the claims only recited a few additional limitations of “first language learning model”, “a process; and memory or storage comprising an algorithm or computer instructions”, and “second language learning model”. These elements, as stated below, are general purpose computing elements. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1-3, 7-9, 13-15, 19-21 and 23-25, the Applicant has incorporated subject matter previously denoted as allowable but objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Therefore, these rejections are withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, 17 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 7, 13, 19, and 23 recite “querying a first language learning model”, “generating groupings of the text output response”, “generating a source score of the groupings based on a first training data and a second training data, where in the source score is determined as
S
c
o
r
e
S
=
m
a
x
(
0
,
S
c
o
r
e
1
-
S
c
o
r
e
2
)
”, “identifying the first training data as training data”, “generating a ranking of training data”, “selecting a second language learning model of the set of language learning models”, and “generating a response to the query”. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the abstract idea of “mental processes” because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). That is, other than reciting “first language learning model”, “a processor; and memory or storage comprising an algorithm or computer instructions”, and “second language learning model”, nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from being practically performed by a person using a language model to answer a query, and then partitioning the output from that query into groups, using those groups to score the output, and then attributing it to a specific set of training data.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements “first language learning model”, “a processor; and memory or storage comprising an algorithm or computer instructions”, and “second language learning model” are generic computer components and are recited at such a high level of generality. 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. Thus, the claims as a whole are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, prong two).
Claims 1, 7, 13, 19, and 23 do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “first language learning model”, “a processor; and memory or storage comprising an algorithm or computer instructions”, and “second language learning model” amount 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 (Step 2B).
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14, 15 17-18, 20-22, and 24-25 are directed to further abstract details relating to the scoring and ranking of the output groupings generated by the language learning model. These limitations are also related to the abstract idea of “mental processes”. That is, nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from practically being performed by a person using a language model to answer a query, and then partitioning the output from that query into groups, using those groups to score the output, and then attributing it to a specific set of training data. The added limitations of “generating a ranking of training data”, “selecting a second language learning model”, “generating a response to the second query”, “generating a first score of the groupings based on the first training data”, “generating a second score of the groupings based on the second training data”, “wherein the first score is determined as
S
c
o
r
e
1
=
∑
l
o
g
10
(
n
-
g
r
a
m
s
o
v
e
r
l
a
p
s
+
1
)
(
n
-
g
r
a
m
s
u
n
i
q
u
e
)
l
o
g
10
(
f
i
r
s
t
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
d
a
t
a
B
y
t
e
s
)
”, and “wherein the second score is determined as
S
c
o
r
e
2
=
∑
l
o
g
10
(
n
-
g
r
a
m
s
o
v
e
r
l
a
p
s
+
1
)
(
n
-
g
r
a
m
s
u
n
i
q
u
e
)
l
o
g
10
(
s
e
c
o
n
d
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
d
a
t
a
B
y
t
e
s
)
”” is not recited with sufficient specificity as to provide any details about how the language learning models and output grouping scoring are used and performed. Thus, the claims as a whole are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, prong two).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, 17 – 25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 25 U.S.C. 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art taken alone or in combination fails to teach the combination of limitations recited in the independent claims including steps of “wherein the source score is determined as
S
c
o
r
e
S
=
m
a
x
(
0
,
S
c
o
r
e
1
-
S
c
o
r
e
2
)
, wherein
S
c
o
r
e
S
represents the source score, wherein
S
c
o
r
e
1
represents the first score of the groupings, and wherein
S
c
o
r
e
2
represents the second score of the groupings”.
Ulasen et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0325717) discloses querying a first language learning model with a first query, wherein the first language learning model generates a text output response to the first query, generating a source score of the groupings based on a first training data and a second training data, and identifying the first training data as training data of the first language learning model based on the source score.
Xu et al. (US Patent No. 8,612,367) discloses generating groupings of the text output response, wherein the groupings include multiple n-grams.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM MICHAEL WEAVER whose telephone number is (571)272-7062. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571) 272-7602. 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.
/ADAM MICHAEL WEAVER/Examiner, Art Unit 2658
/RICHEMOND DORVIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights