DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in reply to Applicants response to non-final rejection received on November 26, 2025. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending in the instant application.
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 Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 13, and 20 in the response filed on November 26, 2025. No claims are canceled at this time.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention (e.g. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims include a system or “apparatus”, method or “process”, or product or “article of manufacture” and is a method for generating presentation media which is a process (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 20 and product Claim 13. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (abstract ideas highlighted in italics and additional elements highlighted in bold)
causing display, by one or more processors, of a user interface to a user, the user interface prompting the user to enter a user instruction;
receiving, by the one or more processors via the user interface, the user instruction, wherein the user instruction includes one or more parameters for a desired media;
retrieving, by the one or more processors using a machine learning model, based on the user instruction, a plurality of data sets from a plurality of dynamic data sources, wherein the plurality of data sets include up-to-date information relating to an organization associated with the user, wherein the machine learning model is trained to associate data stored in the plurality of dynamic data sources with parameters for the desired media;
synthesizing, by the one or more processors using the machine learning model, the plurality of data sets into an intermediate text sequence; and
generating, by the one or more processors based on the intermediate text sequence, a presentation media output, wherein the presentation media output is indicative of the up-to-date information.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Mental Processes”. Receiving user input, retrieving based on the input data from multiple data sources including media, generating text representing the data, and outputting the media based on the parameters recites a concept performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper. But for the “one or more processors”, “user interface”, and “machine learning model” the claim encompasses requesting desired media, searching and obtaining said media from multiple sources locations, generating a text description of the media, and outputting the presentation of the desired media elements using his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor and user interface with the processor using a machine learning model does take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The system of one or more memories storing instructions and a machine leaning model trained to associated data stored in a plurality of data sources in Claim 20 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors in Claim 13 appears to be just software. Claims 13 and 20 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one or more processors, a user interface, and a machine learning model (Claim 1) non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (claim 13) and/or one or more memories storing instructions and a machine leaning model (Claim 20). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 13, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware 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. See Applicant’s specification para. [0026] about implantation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices [0026; The user device 105 may be a computer system such as, for example, a desktop computer, a mobile device, etc. In an exemplary embodiment, the user device 105 may be a cellphone, a tablet, or the like. 0064: A computer system may include one or more computing devices. If the one or more processors of the computer system are implemented as a plurality of processors, the plurality of processors may be included in a single computing device or distributed among a plurality of computing devices. If a computer system comprises a plurality of computing devices, the memory of the computer system may include the respective memory of each computing device of the plurality of computing devices.] and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 13, and 20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, and 13 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The dependent claims include steps or processes which are similar to that disclosed in MPEP 2106.05(d), (f), (g), and/or (h) which include activities and functions the courts have determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner, or as insignificant extra solution activity, or as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
Claim 2 includes manually tagging datasets to train the machine learning where human performance is involved. This is also simply generic and necessary training for a model.
Claim 3 is involving datasets to train the model, which is generic machine learning technique and not more than application of a computer as a tool.
Claim 4 is including a pre-trained model which is a known technique.
Claims 5 and 14 presentation media is slides is covered under MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Claims 6, 7, 15, and 16 and calendaring is merely MPEP 2106.05(d)II. iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
Claims 8, 10, 17, and 19 are equivalent to 2106.05 (d)II. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Claims 9 and 18 are similar to MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
Claims 11 and 12 are directed to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Therefore, the claims 2-12 and 14-19 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
The arguments begin on page 9 of the response with a summary of the claims and the substance of the interview.
The Applicant begins with the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101 and takes the position that the claims provide inventive concept due to unconventional steps. The unconventional steps being dynamic data sources with up-to-date information and synthesizing the data into a text sequence for generating output media (remarks page 10). Applicants state that the amended claims do not recite methods performed in the human mind. Rather, the method includes retrieving up-to-date information form a dynamic source using a machine learning model and synthesized into a text sequence which is used to generate presentation media. Applicants argue that the steps are not routine or conventional.
The Examiner is not in agreement. The Examiner does not find the collection of data, dynamic or not, to be an unconventional step. Further, the concept of synthesizing the data into a text sequence using generic machine learning is not more than applying a computer to form a text sequence. This is also not considered an unconventional step. Using the text sequence to generate a data output in the form of media would also be considered a conventional step. The combination of the steps is not more than use of a computer as a tool to collect, analyze, and display data which are the steps outlined in MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The Applicant moves on to weather or not the claims are integrated into a practical application when considered as a whole. The Applicant cites collection of data from dynamic data sources with up-to-date information, synthesizing the data into a text sequence, and generating presentation media as a technical improvement to the invention supported by the specification (remarks page 12).
The Examiner disagrees. As stated above the steps of collecting data, analyzing it, and presenting it for display are steps the courts have established as insignificant extra solution activity when claimed in a merely generic manner. The examiner does not find the application of dynamic data sources with up-to-date information to be significantly different than collecting data from a regular data source or a combination of data sources. Further, creating a text sequence from the data does no more than arrange the data in any fashion as part of the analysis. Additionally, the disclosure does not indicate exactly what the text sequence entails and under broadest reasonable interpretation, it can be almost anything including a vector (as cited with the prior art).
The arguments move on to the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 102 and 103. The Applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose the amended limitations (remarks page 14-15).
Without acquiescing to the validity of the assertion, the Examiner withdraws the rejections at the present time. The Examiner reserves the right to use the prior art references at a later date as part of a new rejection under 35 U.S.C § 102 or 103 if necessary.
In summary, the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 102 and 103 have been withdrawn at this time. The rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101 remails. The claims are not in condition for allowance.
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 DYLAN C WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-1406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. 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.
/DYLAN C WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 March 12, 2026