DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to the amendment filed 23 February 2026.
Claims 1-20 remain pending and are considered below.
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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 23 February 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 11,947,916 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
The Examiner characterized the claims as covering mental processes that could be performed in the human mind. This characterization fails to account for the specific technical nature of the claimed invention and the problem it addresses. The claims are directed to a method for automatically generating topic sentences from a document corpus-a problem that arises from the proliferation of digital communication channels and the resulting volume of electronic documents that cannot practically be processed by human review. As described in the published application at paragraph [0010]-[0012], many activities require quickly interpreting high volumes of information, and tasks such as customer service analysis, complaint routing, fraud detection, and emergent topic analysis may all require rapid interpretation of high volumes of information. The specification further explains that delays in processing this data could mean a delay in recognizing a failure of a service and subsequent lost revenue from that service. This is a problem rooted in computer technology. The volume of complaints, social media posts, and other electronic documents submitted through network-based services has grown to a scale that makes human review impractical. The claimed invention addresses this computer-specific problem through a computer- specific solution involving topic modeling, context grouping, derivative term identification, frequency-based ordering, and probabilistic sentence generation.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant admits that humans (customer service representative) have sorted “through a high volume of complaints from users submitted through official forms or scraped from Internet forums to detect problems with one or more products” (specification, [0010]). And claimed methods are not rendered patent eligible by the fact that (using existing machine learning technology) they perform a task previously undertaken by humans with greater speed and efficiency than could previously be achieved. Courts have consistently held, in the context of computer-assisted methods, that such claims are not made patent eligible under § 101 simply because they speed up human activity. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; DealerTrack, 674 F.3d at 1333. Whether the issue is raised at step one or step two, the increased speed and efficiency resulting from use of computers (with no improved computer techniques) do not themselves create eligibility. See, e.g., Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (rejecting argument that “humans could not mentally engage in the ‘same claimed process' because they could not perform ‘nanosecond comparisons' and aggregate ‘result values with huge numbers of polls and members' ”) (internal citation omitted); Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding claims abstract where “[t]he only improvements identified in the specification are generic speed and efficiency improvements inherent in applying the use of a computer to any task”).
Applicant further argues:
The Federal Circuit's decision in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), supports the patent-eligibility of the present claims. In DDR Holdings, the court found claims patent-eligible where they addressed a problem particular to the Internet and provided a solution necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. Here, the problem addressed-the inability to efficiently process and summarize large volumes of electronic documents generated through network-based services is particular to the digital environment. The specification explains that customer service representatives may have to sort through a high volume of complaints from users submitted through official forms or scraped from Internet forums to detect problems with one or more products. This problem did not exist before the proliferation of network-based services and electronic communication channels. The claimed solution is likewise rooted in computer technology. The claims recite specific technical steps that cannot be performed mentally, including using a topic model to generate sets of topic terms from a document corpus, grouping sentences into context groups based on topic term similarities, identifying derivative topic terms including stems and synonyms, ordering topic terms by frequency of occurrence in the corpus, and generating topic sentences using most-probable next or previous words determined from the corpus. These steps involve computational analysis of document corpora at a scale and with a methodology that has no analog in human mental processes.
However, the current claims do not address a problem particular to the Internet and provide a solution necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. Suggestion boxes which solicited feedback from citizens and users have been around long before the invention of the internet. Further the fact that “customer service representatives may have to sort through a high volume of complaints from users submitted through official forms or scraped from Internet forums to detect problems with one or more products” implies that humans are able, albeit slowly, to generate a topic sentence based on a document corpus as claimed. And mere instructions to apply an abstract idea using a generic computer components does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant also argues:
The claims also satisfy the requirements articulated in Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2019), because they recite specific technical steps rather than merely a desired outcome. In Finjan, the Federal Circuit distinguished between claims that merely recite a desired result and claims that recite specific steps that accomplish the result, finding the latter patent- eligible because the claims were directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality. Similarly, in Koninklijke, the Federal Circuit held that claims reciting a specific technique for improving computer functionality were not directed to an abstract idea, emphasizing that the claims did not merely recite a goal but instead claimed a specific way of achieving that goal. The present claims follow this pattern. They do not merely recite the goal of summarizing documents. Instead, they recite a specific multi-step technical process including topic modeling to generate topic terms for sentences, grouping sentences into context groups based on topic term similarities, expanding topic terms with derivatives such as stems and synonyms, ordering terms by corpus frequency, and generating sentences using probabilistic word prediction from the corpus. Each step represents a defined computational operation that contributes to the technical result. The claims do not preempt all methods of document summarization-they claim a specific technical approach.
However, the current claims do not provide specific technique for improving computer functionality. A human may practically analyze customer complaints to determine topic trends using previously generated topic sentences. Again, mere instructions to apply an abstract idea using a generic computer components does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant then argues:
The Federal Circuit's decision in SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019), provides additional support for the patent-eligibility of the present claims. In SRI, the court found claims directed to network monitoring patent-eligible where they recited a specific technique for improving computer security by analyzing network data to identify patterns. The court noted that the claims recited a specific, concrete way of automatically detecting network intrusions rather than an abstract concept. The present claims are analogous. Like SRI, the claims involve analyzing data to identify patterns and generate actionable output. Here, the claims analyze document corpora rather than network traffic to identify topic terms and their relationships and generate topic sentences that can trigger automated responses. The specification explains at paragraph [0033] that the topic sentences may be compared to predefined sentences to trigger automated actions such as reconfiguring devices or rebooting servers. The claims recite a specific technique for automatically processing document corpora to generate meaningful summaries-not a general concept of document analysis. The multi-step process involving topic modeling, context grouping, derivative expansion, frequency ordering, and probabilistic sentence generation represents a defined technical approach to the problem.
However, the current claims do not improve computer security by analyzing network data to identify patterns via a specific, concrete way of automatically detecting network intrusions. A person may extract first terms from a document based on some rules; generate second terms by combining the first terms with their respective synonyms; generate a sentence based on the second terms by combining them with most-probable preceding or following terms; and compare the sentence to predefined sentences and perform an action based on the comparison. Therefore, the multi-step process is nothing more than an abstract idea.
Applicant finally argues:
The Examiner's assertion that the claimed steps could be performed mentally does not withstand scrutiny when the claims are considered as a whole. The claims require processing a document corpus comprising problem reports of a network-based service. Such corpora typically contain thousands or millions of documents. The specification describes customer complaints submitted through official forms or scraped from Internet forums and social media posts requiring analysis of topic trends using previously determined topic sentences for previous time periods. Processing such volumes of data mentally is not practical. Moreover, the claims require computational operations that have no mental analog. Using a topic model such as LDA to generate topic terms involves statistical analysis of word distributions across documents. Ordering terms by frequency of occurrence in the document corpus requires counting occurrences across the entire corpus. Generating sentences using most-probable next or most-probable previous words determined from the document corpus requires probabilistic analysis of word sequences across the corpus. These operations involve statistical and probabilistic computations over large datasets that cannot practically be performed by human cognition.
For the foregoing reasons, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. They address a problem rooted in computer technology-the volume of electronic documents generated through network-based services-using a specific technical solution involving topic modeling, context analysis, and probabilistic sentence generation. The claims are analogous to those found patent- eligible in DDR Holdings, Finjan, Koninklijke, and SRI International. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As admitted by Applicant humans (customer service representative) have sorted “through a high volume of complaints from users submitted through official forms or scraped from Internet forums to detect problems with one or more products” (specification, [0010]). Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea using a generic computer components does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. And as put forth above, the current claims are not analogous to claims found eligible in DDR Holdings, Finjan, Koninklijke, and SRI International.
Therefore, all of Applicant’s arguments have been considered and they are not persuasive.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Further, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In claims 1, 8 and 15, the limitations a plurality of sentences from the document corpus; for a first set of topic terms of the respective sets of topic terms, identify a second set of topic terms, the second set of second topic terms including the first set of topic terms and a plurality of similar terms; generating, at least one topic sentence, based upon the second set of topic terms by processing the second set of topic terms and corresponding most-probable next or most-probable previous words of the second set of topic terms, the most-probable next or most-probable previous words determined from the document corpus or a second document corpus; comparing the at least one topic sentence to one or more predefined topic sentences that indicate a problem with the network-based service; and based upon the comparison of the at least one topic sentence to one or more predefined topic sentences, performing at least one
That is, other than reciting “automatically, using a computing device”, “automated” and a “computing device of the network based service” (claim 1), a “non-transitory machine-readable medium, storing instructions, which when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations”, “automated” and a “computing device of the network based service” (claim 8) and a “computing device comprising: a processor; a memory, storing instructions which when performed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations”, “automated” and a “computing device of the network based service” (claim 15) nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person may use a topic model to generate, from the document corpus, respective sets of topic terms describing predicted topics for each of a plurality of sentences from the document corpus (e.g. a human may extract first terms from a document based on some rules); for a first set of topic terms of the respective sets of topic terms, identify a second set of topic terms, the second set of second topic terms including the first set of topic terms and a plurality of similar terms (e.g. a human may generate second terms by combining the first terms with their respective synonyms); generating, at least one topic sentence, based upon the second set of topic terms by processing the second set of topic terms and corresponding most-probable next or most-probable previous words of the second set of topic terms, the most-probable next or most-probable previous words determined from the document corpus or a second document corpus (e.g. a human may generate a sentence based on the second terms by combining them with most-probable preceding or following terms); comparing the at least one topic sentence to one or more predefined topic sentences that indicate a problem with the network-based service; and based upon the comparison of the at least one topic sentence to one or more predefined topic sentences, performing at least one action (e.g. a human may compare the sentence to predefined sentences and perform an action based on the comparison).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements – “automatically, using a computing device”, “automated” and a “computing device of the network based service” (claim 1), a “non-transitory machine-readable medium, storing instructions, which when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations”, “automated” and a “computing device of the network based service” (claim 8) and a “computing device comprising: a processor; a memory, storing instructions which when performed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations”, “automated” and a “computing device of the network based service” (claim 15) which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
The claims also recite the additional elements “retrieving a document corpus comprising problem reports of a network-based service”. The claims do not impose any limits on how the input text is retrieved. In other words, the claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claims fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. These limitations therefore represent extra-solution activity because they are mere nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Accordingly, the 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. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As stated above, the claims recite the additional limitations of “automatically, using a computing device”, “automated” and a “computing device of the network based service” (claim 1), a “non-transitory machine-readable medium, storing instructions, which when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations”, “automated” and a “computing device of the network based service” (claim 8) and a “computing device comprising: a processor; a memory, storing instructions which when performed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations”, “automated” and a “computing device of the network based service” (claim 15). However, these are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications (see Applicant’s specification [0035]-[0037]). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
The claims also recite the additional elements “retrieving a document corpus comprising problem reports of a network-based service”. The claims do not impose any limits on how the input text is retrieved. In other words, the claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claims fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. These limitations therefore represent the extra-solution activity of gathering data which are well-understood, routine and conventional activities. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite:
wherein the topic model is a Latent Dirichlet Allocation generative statistical model used to identify the respective sets of topic terms;
wherein the plurality of similar terms includes stems of words from the first set of topic terms, and synonyms identified using a dictionary or a thesaurus;
wherein the generating of the at least one topic sentence further includes using Natural Language Generation algorithms to create the sentence from the second set of topic terms;
wherein the document corpus includes customer complaints submitted through official forms or scraped from Internet forums;
wherein the at least one automated action includes reconfiguring one or more devices of the network-based service when the at least one topic sentence matches or is close to the one or more predefined topic sentences (note the reconfiguring is a contingent limitation that is not required to be performed unless the at least one topic sentence matches or is close to the one or more predefined topic sentences);
wherein the at least one topic sentence is used to automatically reboot a specified device when the topic sentence indicates that a network-based service is down (note the reboot is a contingent limitation that is not required to be performed unless the at least one topic sentence matches or is close to the one or more predefined topic sentences).
The additional recited limitations further narrow the steps of the independent claims without however providing “a practical application of” or "significantly more than" the underlying “Mental Processes” abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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 SAMUEL G NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm 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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
/SAMUEL G NEWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657