DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the claim amendment filed on December 16, 2025, in which claim 1 was canceled and claims 2-21 are presented for further examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. After reviewed applicant’s argument in light of the original specification, it is conceivable, the claimed “generating a first classification model configured to identify in-class document subsets, wherein the first classification model is built without model training;
generating, utilizing the first classification model, first data identifying a first subset of sample documents determined to be in class associated with an identified technology, wherein the first classification model is associated with a first confidence threshold score indicating a first degree of confidence for predicting a given document as in class, wherein the first classification model utilizes computer-centric transfer learning to generate the first data;
generating a second classification model configured to identify the in-class document subsets, wherein the second classification model is built utilizing information obtained while generating the first data:
generating, utilizing the second classification model, second data identifying a second subset of sample documents determined to be in class, wherein the second classification model utilizes computer-centric transfer learning to generate the second data; and
generating third data indicating a third subset of sample documents that are in the first subset and the second subset” are identified as abstract idea.
The identified claimed “displaying, to a user, a user interface configured to display keywords from documents predicted as in class by at least the first classification model utilizing the first confidence threshold score; and updating the user interface upon receiving user input data indicating a second confidence threshold score to apply to at least the first classification model, the user input data in response to the keywords as displayed via the user interface” are identified as additional elements.
Therefore, the claimed amendment filed on December 16, 2025 is not overcome the 35 USC 101
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
At Step 1:
With respect to subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it is determined that the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The limitation “generating a first classification model configured to identify in-class document subsets, wherein the first classification model is built without model training” in claims 2 and 12, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “generating a first classification model configured to identify in-class document subsets”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “generating a first classification model configured to identify in-class document subsets”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper generate a first classification model configured to identify in-class document subsets.
The limitation “generating, utilizing the first classification model, first data identifying a first subset of sample documents determined to be in class associated with an identified technology, wherein the first classification model is associated with a first confidence threshold score indicating a first degree of confidence for predicting a given document as in class, wherein the first classification model utilizes computer-centric transfer learning to generate the first data” in claims 2 and 12, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “generating, utilizing the first classification model, first data identifying a first subset of sample documents determined to be in class associated with an identified technology”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “generating, utilizing the first classification model, first data identifying a first subset of sample documents determined to be in class associated with an identified technology”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper generate, utilizing the first classification model, first data identifying a first subset of sample documents determined to be in class associated with an identified technology.
The limitation “generating a second classification model configured to identify the in-class document subsets, wherein the second classification model is built utilizing information obtained while generating the first data” in claims 2 and 12, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “generating a second classification model configured to identify the in-class document subsets”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “generating a second classification model configured to identify the in-class document subsets”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper generate a second classification model configured to identify the in-class document subsets.
The limitation “generating, utilizing the second classification model, second data identifying a second subset of sample documents determined to be in class, wherein the second classification model utilizes computer-centric transfer learning to generate the second data” in claims 2 and 12, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “generating, utilizing the second classification model, second data identifying a second subset of sample documents determined to be in class”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “generating, utilizing the second classification model, second data identifying a second subset of sample documents determined to be in class”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper generate, utilizing the second classification model, second data identifying a second subset of sample documents determined to be in class.
The limitation “generating third data indicating a third subset of sample documents that are in the first subset and the second subset” in claims 2 and 12, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “generating third data indicating a third subset of sample documents that are in the first subset and the second subset”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “generating third data indicating a third subset of sample documents that are in the first subset and the second subset”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper generate third data indicating a third subset of sample documents that are in the first subset and the second subset.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
That the method is "implemented by a computing system” is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitation “displaying to a user a user interface configured to display keywords from documents predicted as in class by at least the first classification model utilizing the first confidence threshold score” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. The mere outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The limitation “updating the user interface upon receiving user input data indicating a second confidence threshold score to apply to at least the first classification model, the user input data in response to the keywords as displayed via the user interface” amounts to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “one or more processors; and non-transitory computer-readable media” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Note, the mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the "for display ….." identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional in displaying information as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), " iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93" and "i. … transmitting data over a network, …Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)".
With respect to the "updating ….." identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the “one or more processors; and non-transitory computer-readable media” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
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.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim appears to be ineligible.
Accordingly, claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea. The remaining independent claim 12 falls short the 35 USC 101 requirement under the same rationale.
The dependent claims 3-11 and 13-21 when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites “generating a third classification model configured to identify documents that are relevant to a subcategory associated with the identified technology; generating, utilizing the third classification model, fourth data identifying a fourth subset of the sample documents determined to be in class; and wherein the third subset includes the sample documents that are in the first subset, the second subset, and the fourth subset”. These claimed limitations , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception. Same rationale applies to claim 13.
Claim 4 recites “generating a third classification model configured to identify documents that are relevant to a subcategory associated with the identified technology; generating, utilizing the third classification model, fourth data identifying a fourth subset of the sample documents determined to be in class; and wherein the third subset includes the sample documents that are in the first subset, the second subset, and the fourth subset”. These claimed limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception. Same rationale applies to claim 14.
Claim 5 recites “applying the second confidence threshold to the first classification model instead of the first confidence threshold score”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for applying confidence threshold, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claim 15.
Claim 6 recites “generating first vectors representing the sample documents associated with the third subset in a coordinate system; determining an area of the coordinate system associated with the first vectors; and identifying additional documents represented by second vectors in the coordinate system that are within the area”. These claimed limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception. Same rationale applies to claim 16.
Claim 7 recites “generating a third classification model configured to identify the sample documents that are relevant to a subcategory associated with the identified technology; generating, utilizing the third classification model, fourth data identifying a fourth subset of the sample documents determined to be in class; and wherein the third subset includes the sample documents that are in at least one of: the first subset and the second subset; the second subset and the fourth subset; or the first subset and the fourth subset”. These claimed limitations is directed to a concept of a mental process or evaluation. There are no additional elements recited to the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claim 17.
Claim 8 recites “storing a model hierarchy of models including the first classification model and the second classification model, the model hierarchy indicating relationships between the first and second classification models; and generating an indicator that in-class prediction of documents for the identified technology is performed utilizing the first classification model and the second classification model”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for storing model hierarchy of models, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claim 18.
Claim 9 recites “receiving a search query for a model to utilize from the model hierarchy; determining that the search query corresponds to the identified technology; and providing response data to the search query representing the indicator instead of the first classification model and the second classification model”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for receiving a search query for a model, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claim 19.
Claim 10 recites “generating the first classification model trained utilizing transfer learning techniques and configured to identify documents that are relevant to a first subcategory associated with the identified technology; and generating the second classification model trained utilizing transfer learning techniques and configured to identify the documents that are relevant to a second subcategory associated with the identified technology”. These claimed limitations is directed to a concept of a mental process or evaluation. There are no additional elements recited to the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claim 20.
Claim 11 recites “generating a node for a model taxonomy of the one or more trained classification models, wherein the node corresponds to the third subset of sample documents; and associating a location of the node within the model taxonomy of the one or more trained classification models such that the node is indicated as being related to the first classification model and the second classification model”. These claimed limitations is directed to a concept of a mental process or evaluation. There are no additional elements recited to the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claim 21.
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 JEAN M CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-4032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30a-10p(Midflex).
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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571)272-9767. 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.
/JEAN M CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 March 9, 2026