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
1. This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on December 29, 2025, which paper has been placed of record in the file.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted December 22, 2025 and February 17, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 17, which is analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a system for interpreting an output generated by an inference model. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites a system for interpreting an output generated by an inference model. The Specification, para [0012] described that “Prior to making the decisions and/or providing the computer-implemented services, the downstream consumers may establish a level of confidence in each output of the outputs. The level of confidence may determine, at least in part, whether the downstream consumer utilizes the outputs as a basis for making decisions and/or providing the computer-implemented services” The claim recites the following steps: generating analytic data…; generating one or more questions…; and providing the one or more questions to a downstream consumer for the downstream consumer to interpret and build confidence in the output of the inference model, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites the steps of: generating analytic data…; generating one or more questions…; and providing the one or more questions to a downstream consumer…, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor/automatically”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of “a processor”, “a memory”, “an output generated by an inference model”, “ingest data used by the inference model”, “generating, by a first large language model (LLM) analytic data” and “generating, by a second LLM one or more questions.” The claim also recites that the steps of “generating analytic data…; generating one or more questions…; and providing the one or more questions to a downstream consumer…” are performed by a processor.
The additional elements “an output generated by an inference model”, “ingest data used by the inference model”, “generating, by a first large language model (LLM) analytic data” and “generating, by a second LLM one or more questions” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
The additional elements “an output generated by an inference model”, “ingest data used by the inference model”, “generating, by a first large language model (LLM) analytic data” and “generating, by a second LLM one or more questions” are used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the machine learning models function. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “generating an output” and “generating analytic data and one or more questions” and do not include any details about how the solution is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements “an output generated by an inference model”, “ingest data used by the inference model”, “generating, by a first large language model (LLM) analytic data” and “generating, by a second LLM one or more questions” also merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “an output generated by an inference model”, “ingest data used by the inference model”, “generating, by a first large language model (LLM) analytic data” and “generating, by a second LLM one or more questions” limit the identified judicial exceptions ““generating an output” and “generating analytic data and one or more questions”, this type of limitations merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the steps of “generating analytic data…; generating one or more questions…; and providing the one or more questions to a downstream consumer…”, are recited as being performed by the processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processor, a memory, and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f).
These additional elements do not provide any improvements to the technology, improvements to the functioning of the computer, the processor, the memory, improvements to machine learning, or other technology. They just merely used as general means for performing the abstract idea. They do not recite a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claims, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements of “an output generated by an inference model”, “ingest data used by the inference model”, “generating, by a first large language model (LLM) analytic data” and “generating, by a second LLM one or more questions” are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processor to perform limitations “generating analytic data…; generating one or more questions…; and providing the one or more questions to a downstream consumer…”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 12, Alice Corp. establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent claim 1 directed to a method, independent claim 12 directed to a medium, are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 17.
Regarding dependent claims 2-11, 13-16 and 18-20, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 13 and 18, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein generating the analytic data comprises: the first ingest data comprising: inference model ingest data used by the inference model to generate the output…, that fall under the category of Organizing human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 17. Moreover, the claims recite the additional element feeding first ingest data into the first LLM …, which are used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the large language model functions. Rather, this limitation only recites the outcome of “generating analytic data” and does not include any details about how the solution is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). (See claim 17 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 3, 14 and 19, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the leading indicators are based on a first query of the set of the queries and the emerging trends are based on a second query of the set of the queries, that fall under the category of Mental process grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 17. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 4, 15 and 20, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the first query and the second query are keyed to a portion of the output, that fall under the category of Mental process grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 17. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 5 and 16, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the output comprises a prediction for a condition impacting a business at a future point in time, that fall under the category of Mental process grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 17. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 6, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting 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, that fall under the category of Mental process grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 17. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 7, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein a leading indicator of the leading indicators is revenue of the supplier at the future point in time, that fall under the category of Mental process grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 17. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 8, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further wherein an emerging trend of the emerging trends is a change in the revenue of the supplier at the future point in time, that fall under the category of Mental process grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 17. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 9, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the questions are usable to search data sources from which the inference model ingest data was obtained to identify additional data usable to establish a level of confidence in the output, that fall under the category of Mental process grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 17. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 10, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein a first question generation template of the set of the question generation templates is keyed to a first portion of the analytic data…, that fall under the category of Mental process grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 17. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 11, the claim recites the additional elements wherein the first question generation template prompts the second LLM to generate a question usable to identify facts to establish a causal relationship between a portion of the output and the first portion of the analytic data, which are used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the large language model functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “generating a question” and do not include any details about how the solution is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). (See claim 17 above). Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not draw to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Novelty and Non-Obviousness
6. No prior arts were applied to the claims because the Examiner is unaware of any prior arts, alone or in combination, which disclose at least the limitations of “generating, by a first large language model (LLM) and based on at least the output, analytic data comprising: leading indicators from ingest data used by the inference model to generate the output; and/or emerging trends from the ingest data used by the inference model to identify the leading indicators; generating, by a second LLM and using the analytic data and a set of question generation templates, one or more questions, used to interpret the output of the inference model; and providing the one or more questions to a downstream consumer for the downstream consumer to interpret and build confidence in the output of the inference model” recited in the independent claims 1, 12, and 17.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
7. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that the amended claims cannot be practically performed within the human mind using just the aid of pen and paper, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the amended claims Moreover, the claim recites the steps of: generating analytic data…; generating one or more questions…; and providing the one or more questions to a downstream consumer…, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor/automatically”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitations “generating, by a first large language model (LLM) analytic data” and “generating, by a second LLM one or more questions” are additional elements, and analyzing under Step 2A, Prong-Two.
The additional elements “an output generated by an inference model”, “ingest data used by the inference model”, “generating, by a first large language model (LLM) analytic data” and “generating, by a second LLM one or more questions” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
The additional elements “an output generated by an inference model”, “ingest data used by the inference model”, “generating, by a first large language model (LLM) analytic data” and “generating, by a second LLM one or more questions” are used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the machine learning models function. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “generating an output” and “generating analytic data and one or more questions” and do not include any details about how the solution is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements “an output generated by an inference model”, “ingest data used by the inference model”, “generating, by a first large language model (LLM) analytic data” and “generating, by a second LLM one or more questions” also merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “an output generated by an inference model”, “ingest data used by the inference model”, “generating, by a first large language model (LLM) analytic data” and “generating, by a second LLM one or more questions” limit the identified judicial exceptions ““generating an output” and “generating analytic data and one or more questions”, this type of limitations merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
These additional elements do not provide any improvements to the technology, improvements to the functioning of the computer, the processor, the memory, improvements to the machine learning, or other technology. They just merely used as general means for performing the abstract idea. They do not recite a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claims, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Accordingly, the amended claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the amended claims are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
8. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
10. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Agrawal et al. (US 2025/0284721) disclose a database system integrates in-database machine learning (ML) models with in-database large language models (LLMs) or other generative artificial intelligence (AI) models that enable new applications.
Jin (US 2025/0238623) discloses a method and apparatus to receive an input question to the LLM, the LLM comprising a pretrained model and an aligned model.
Nataranjan et al. (US 2025/0233872) disclose an example assistant system can use a multimodal multitask medical machine-learned model to perform image processing to answer natural language queries.
Banuelos et al. (US 2025/0190763) disclose a computing platform may generate, using a test case generation model, a plurality of large language model (LLM) test cases.
Ghose et al. (US 2025/0095642) disclose methods for an automated clinical recommendation system that generates clinical recommendations for patients of a health care system based on natural language queries submitted by care providers of the health care system.
Hettige et al. (US 2025/0094821) disclose techniques for fine-tuning a pre-trained machine learning model to be used by a digital assistant for supporting a user's interactions.
Walters et al. (US 2025/0086737) disclose artificial intelligence-based idea discovery and feedback system and method.
Atashbar (US 2025/0028905) discloses a system to select an optimum model from a plurality of models. The system further includes a data structure configured to store a Large Language Model (LLM) that is pre-trained using a training data.
Licato (US 2024/0311619) discloses language analysis sing machine learning models.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner NGA B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-5PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 March 19, 2026