DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed on 04/19/2026.
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are pending and have been examined.
All previous objections/rejections not mentioned in this Office Action have been withdrawn by the examiner.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on pgs 2-4 that the claims recite a specific computerized workflow for assessing and improving summary text generated by a GPT-based LLM, and as such integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application, as well as providing a solution to a technical problem. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with these assertions. The operations and calculations performed by the system, including by the GPT-based LLM and NLP module, read to processes that can be performed by a human after learning how to perform specific functions related to the understanding and writing of natural language, including calculating scores for the quality of any text written by the human. The new recitation of providing feedback details and modifying the text-prompt reads to a human recognizing when a summary is poorly written, identifying feedback, updating their instructions for how to write a better summary, and performing the entire process again. The Examiner also notes that, while the process is performed again when a score is below a threshold, there is no indication of a score ever being above a threshold and what happens in that instance, or that the process is iterated until the score is above a threshold, thus indicating that the feedback and prompt modification ultimately leads to a higher-quality summary.
In order to more clearly identify a technological improvement recited in the claims, the Examiner suggests incorporating language from [00149] and [00153] in the specification, which may assist in clarifying the technological improvement, pending precise wording and subsequent reconsideration of the claim as a whole.
Hence, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites "related summary-text". There is unclear antecedent basis for this term in the claims. Based on the limitation, it appears that the “related summary text” is the text that is corresponding to the interpreted final-quality score. The Examiner suggests amending the claims to clarify if this is the case, such as by reciting –the summary text corresponding to the interpreted final-quality score--.
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 1-3 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim(s) 1, the limitation(s) of receiving, operating, measuring, operating, operating, providing feedback details, receive a regenerated summary-text, and performing analysis operations, as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. More specifically, the mental process of a human reading a document and summary that was written by another person using specific input information, using an understanding of language to re-write the document and summary text into a specific format, using a specific set of evaluation criteria to determine scores for the re-written text, performing a normalization calculation on each score from the set of scores, performing another calculation on the set of scores to determine a final score, determining when the scores are below a certain quality level, telling another person what the results of the analysis were, the other person changing the summarization instructions and redoing the summary, and giving the new summary to the human so that they can perform the analysis on the new summary. The LLM and NLP modules read to a human understanding language rules for how to read, understand, evaluate, and provide written text. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the --Mental Processes-- grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recitation of a computerized device reads to generalized computer components, based upon the claim interpretation wherein the structure is interpreted using [0034] in the specification. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Using generalized computer components to receive, operate, measure, operate, operate, provide, receive, and perform, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 2, the claim(s) recite(s) operating tokenization, operating lemmatization, and operating named entity recognition, which reads on a human parsing the text in specific ways and recognizing entities within the text by identifying the a category for each segment of text. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim(s) 3, the claim(s) recite(s) sorting, assigning, and dividing, which reads on a human performing specific steps and/or calculations to perform normalization of the scores. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim(s) 5-8, the claim(s) recite(s) specific characteristics of the feedback-details, which reads on a human providing specific information to the other person. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim(s) 9, the claim(s) recite(s) feedback details are not provided, which reads on a human recognizing when not to provide the results to the other person. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim(s) 10 and 12, the claim(s) recite(s) storing the interpreted final-quality score and (claim 12) other specific information, which reads on a human writing the score and other specific information down on a piece of paper for future reference. The database reads to a generalized computer component as per [0034] in the specification.
With respect to claim(s) 11, the claim(s) recite(s) retrieving, which reads on a human looking up specific information and writing it out to show to the other person. The display unit reads to a generalized computer component as per [0034] and [0162] in the specification.
With respect to claim(s) 13 and 14, the claim(s) recite(s) performing specific calculations on the metric scores, which reads on a human performing the specified calculations on the different scores. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim(s) 15, the claim(s) recite(s) identifying a context used to determine the adjusted-weight of each normalized score, which reads on a human using a specific characteristic of the text to determine a weight for the calculations to be performed. No additional limitations are present.
These claims further do not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application and further fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, and any additional respective rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Please see the previous Office Action detailing the statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
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 NICOLE A K SCHMIEDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1474. 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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at (571) 272-7799. 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.
/NICOLE A K SCHMIEDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights