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 .
Detailed Action
In amendments dated 2/11/26, Applicant amended claims 1-3, 6-11, 13, and 16-20, canceled claim 5, and added no new claims. Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are presented for examination.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 2, 17, and 20 are 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. The last limitation of each claim recites “in a first instance of the third determination in which the updated insights are not relevant to the end user and could not be presented to the end user: continuing to iteratively modify the updated insights.” Each claim recites iteratively modifying updated insights but does not recite a terminating condition on the iterating, so the claimed iterations would continue without end. Thus the scope of said limitations could not be determined, thus the claims are indefinite.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 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 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 16, and 19 each recites generating, without human intervention, a level of confidence for the output that quantifies a reliability of the output for the end user by at least: obtaining a leading indicator for the ingest data using a first large language model (LLM); obtaining an emerging trend for the leading indicator using the first LLM; obtaining a first question based on the leading indicator and the emerging trend, the first question being adapted to identify facts to establish a causal relationship between the prediction, the leading indicator, and the emerging trend and being generated by a second LLM; and obtaining, using at least the first question and contextual data from a plurality of data sources, insights comprising the causal relationship and being generated by a third LLM, the insights establishing the level of confidence for the output; and making, further without human intervention, a first determination whether the insights could be presented to the end user without negatively impacting an ability of the end user to interpret the output as a result of the insights not being relevant to the end user by at least: training a fourth LLM to emulate the end user to obtain a trained fourth LLM by at least: converting the end user information into a format readable by the fourth LLM; ingesting, by the fourth LLM, the end user information; modifying parameters of the fourth LLM based on the end user information to cause the fourth LLM to emulate a persona of the end user, the persona being used to predict behavior of the end user; validating, by the fourth LLM and while the fourth LLM is emulating the persona, the emulation of the persona by the fourth LLM by evaluating responses to the second questions, the responses to the second questions being provided to interrogate the persona being emulated by the fourth LLM; generating, using the trained fourth LLM that has been validated as emulating the persona of the end user, a success score for the insights the success score indicating an extent to which the insights are relevant to the end user based on the end user information used to train the fourth LLM and a response to the first question provided by the insights; and making a second determination, based on the success score and success criteria, regarding whether the insights are relevant to the end user and could be presented to the end user. Generating a level of confidence for output is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper; obtaining a leading indicator, obtaining an emerging trend, obtaining a first question, and obtaining insights are each recited broadly and are mental processes accomplishable in the human mind or on paper, and making a first determination and a second determination are each evaluating steps and are mental processes. Examiner notes that applying a large language model to obtain a leading indicator, an emerging trend, a first question, and insights are each applying a machine learning model to obtain data and are not significantly more than a mental process per Recentive Analytics v. Fox Broadcasting Corp. (134 F.4th 1205, 2025 U.S.P.Q.2d 628). Training a fourth LLM by converting end user information into a format; ingesting end user information by the forth LLM, modifying parameters of the fourth LLM, validating an emulation of a persona by the fourth LLM, and generating a success score using a fourth LLM are each not significantly more than mental processes per Recentive Analytics v. Fox Broadcasting Corp. (134 F.4th 1205, 2025 U.S.P.Q.2d 628). Making a second determination is an evaluation and a mental process. Each claim recites additional elements of obtaining ingest data, obtaining end user information, obtaining second questions, which are each data gathering steps and insignificant extra-solution activity, and contextualizing and providing contextualized output, which is an output step and also insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 16 recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium and claim 19 recites a data processing system comprising a processor and a memory coupled to the processor, which are each generic components of a computer. Examiner notes the amended limitations are recited as conclusive statements or without inventive details that may show the improvements described in specification paragraphs 0017-0018. Thus these claim steps do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claims as a whole, the input step and output step are each recited broadly and amount to sending and receiving data across a network per specification paragraph 0069 and figure 1 communication system 106, which are routine and conventional activities per the list in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The non-transitory machine-readable medium and a processor and a memory coupled to the processor are each still generic components of a computer. Thus the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Claims 2, 17, and 20 each recites obtaining updated insights (recited broadly and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper, since claims 1, 16, and 19 each recite obtaining insights using an LLM, Examiner notes applying an LLM in this manner is not significantly more than a mental process per Recentive Analytics v. Fox Broadcasting Corp. (134 F.4th 1205, 2025 U.S.P.Q.2d 628)); making a third determination regarding whether the updated insights are relevant to the end user and could be presented to the end user (making a determination is an evaluating step and a mental process); and in a first instance of the third determination in which the updated insights are not relevant to the end user and could not be presented to the end user: continuing to iteratively modify the updated insights (modifying insights is modifying data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claims 3 and 18 each recites modifying the first question to obtain an updated first question (modifying data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); and using the updated first question as input for the third LLM to generate the updated insights (input to a large language model is merely applying the model and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 4 recites wherein the end user information comprises at least one selected from a list consisting of: text generated by the end user; an educational history of the end user; an employment history of the end user; and historic behavior of the end user (data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper).
Claim 6 recites wherein the end user is an individual (a user is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 7 recites wherein the end user is a role within a business and the business having at least two individuals that perform the role (users are a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 8 recites wherein the insights should be presented to the end user when the success score meets the success criteria (insights are data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 9 recites obtaining, based on at least the output, analytic data generated by the first LLM, the analytic data comprising: leading indicators from ingest data used by the inference model to generate the output; and emerging trends from the ingest data used by the inference model to identify the leading indicators (obtaining data generated from a large language model is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); and obtaining, using at least the analytic data and a set of question generation templates, the first question generated by the second LLM (obtaining data generated from a large language model is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper).
Claim 10 recites feeding first ingest data into the first LLM, the first ingest data comprising: inference model ingest data used by the inference model to generate the output; and a set of queries comprising second questions to be answered by the first LLM, the second questions being based on the inference model ingest data and the output; and obtaining, as output from the first LLM, the analytic data (obtaining data generated from a large language model is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 11 recites wherein the first question is usable to identify facts to establish a causal relationship between at least a portion of the output and at least a portion of the analytic data (identifying data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 12 recites wherein the contextual data comprises economic report data (data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper).
Claim 13 recites retraining the second LLM by applying reinforced learning to the second LLM using at least the first question to increase a likelihood that future ones of the first question generated by the second LLM result in future ones of the insights that meet the success criteria (training/retraining a LLM is not significantly more than a mental process per Recentive Analytics v. Fox Broadcasting Corp. (134 F.4th 1205, 2025 U.S.P.Q.2d 628)). ). Claim 14 recites wherein the output comprises a prediction for a condition impacting a business at a future point in time (a prediction is data which is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 15 recites wherein the condition impacting the business at the future point in time is a change in availability of supply of a product from a supplier (a prediction is data which is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper).
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks
Regarding objections to claims 2, 17, and 20 for unclear language in the last limitation “continuing to iteratively modify the updated insights until the modified updated insights are are determined to be relevant to the user,” in view of amendments reciting “continuing to iteratively modify the updated insights,” these objections are withdrawn. Examiner notes the new rejections above for these claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reciting continuing to iteratively modify the insights without a terminating condition. Regarding rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting mental processes without significantly more, Applicant’s amendments and arguments have bene considered but are not persuasive. On page 15 of his Remarks Applicant asserts the claimed “training of the claimed fourth LLM to emulate the claimed persona of the end user by at least performance of all of the above claimed steps is NOT a process that be practically performed by the human mind with only the aid of pen and paper.” Examiner disagrees and quotes from Recentive Analytics v. Fox Broadcasting Corp. (134 F.4th 1205, 2025 U.S.P.Q.2d 628): “This case presents a question of first impression: whether claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment are patent eligible. We hold that they are not.” Thus training a machine learning model such as a large language model is not significantly more thana mental process.
Also on page 15 Applicant asserts the amended claims are now directed towards an improvement over the prior art of manual evaluation of input data which is a time-intensive process, may place an undesirable cognitive burden on the downstream consumer, and may be vulnerable to human error per specification paragraphs 0016-0017. Examiner disagrees as the amended limitations recite using or applying or generating via an LLM or are broad limitations without inventive details showing how the invention achieves the improvements, for example in the limitations making a first and second determinations, converting information into a format readable by the LLM, and modifying parameters of the fourth LLM. Examiner found extended discussion of activities with the fourth LLM in specification paragraphs 0099-0118 discussing figure 2D and 0139-0157 discussing figure 3.
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE M MOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-1718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571 270-5626. 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.
/BRUCE M MOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 4/22/26
Prosecution Insights