DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Final Rejection. This action is in response to the amendment and response filed on March 5, 2026.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant argues that the “amendment demonstrates that claim 1 does not simply invoke an LLM twice as a generic tool. Instead, claim 1 recites a specific technical architecture where the LLM generates an output that configures the subsequent prompt. The LLM-generated follow-on prompt instruction becomes an integral component of the second prompt, creating a self-referential prompting mechanism that improves the quality and consistency of content modifications. This represents a unique improvement to normal LLM functionality because the system leverages the LLM’s own output to structure and enhance subsequent interactions with the LLM.” Remarks at 8. Applicant further asserts that “[t]he claimed approach also cannot be performed in the human mind, as a person cannot mentally generate and execute structure prompt instructions for an LLM. These are inherently computer-based processes that require specialized LLM processing techniques beyond human capabilities.” Id. at 8-9. Although Applicant’s claimed invention may improve the abstract idea, the LLM itself or other technology is not being improved. For example, Applicant is using an existing process of follow-on prompts in order to implement the abstract idea. Applicant should refer to claim 2 of Example 47. Like example claim 2, the use of the claimed LLM is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. Additionally example claim 2 recites mental processes even though it recites computer-based processes.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the rejection has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. The specific data included in the first prompt (including the request for the LLM to generate a follow-on prompt instruction for modifying the selected content according to the intent), reply from the LLM, and the second prompt (including the follow-on prompt instruction generated by the LLM) as these limitations are combined with the full independent claim was not found in the prior art.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant should be aware that there is claim language that does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art and/or provide an additional element that can be a consideration for eligibility1. See MPEP 2103(c). Claims 1-7 are representative.
Nonfunctional Descriptive Material
Nonfunctional descriptive material is generally not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05. Any difference related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the type of the item) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method is nonfunctional descriptive material and does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
The following limitations include nonfunctional descriptive material:
Claim 2: display a personalization questionnaire comprising personalization questions relating to personalized writing assistance
Claim 6: display a summary, generated by the LLM, of changes captured in the modified version
Claim 7: display the intent in a graphical card in a user interface and to receive user input in the graphical card comprising the user acceptance of the intent
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 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Yes, with respect to claims 1-7, which recite a system and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine or manufacture.
Yes, with respect to claims 8-14, which recite a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of process.
Yes, with respect to claims 15-20, which recite “one or more computer readable storage media” and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of manufacture. (Paragraph 0080 of the Specification states that “In no case is the computer readable storage media a propagated signal.” Therefore, the computer readable storage media is interpreted as non-transitory.)
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
The following claims (Claims 1-7 are representative) identify the limitations that recite the abstract idea in regular text and that recite additional elements in bold:
1. A computing apparatus comprising:
one or more computer readable storage media;
one or more processors operatively coupled with the one or more computer readable storage media; and
program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media that, when executed by the one or more processors, direct the computing apparatus to at least:
identify user-specific preferences for content creation;
generate and submit a first prompt to a large language model (LLM) comprising selected content associated with a user and the user-specific preferences, and a request for the LLM to generate feedback identifying one or more concerns with the selected content in view of the user-specific preferences, suggest an intent describing how to modify the selected content to address the one or more concerns, and generate a follow-on prompt instruction for modifying the selected content according to the intent;
receive a reply from the LLM comprising the feedback and the intent to modify the selected content;
upon user acceptance of the intent, generate and submit a second prompt comprising the follow-on prompt instruction generated by the LLM, the feedback, the intent, and a request for the LLM to modify the selected content according to the intent;
receive a second reply from the LLM comprising a modified version of the selected content; and
display the modified version of the selected content.
2. The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the program instructions further direct the computing apparatus to display a personalization questionnaire comprising personalization questions relating to personalized writing assistance.
3. The computing apparatus of claim 2, wherein the user-specific preferences comprise preferences determined based on responses from the user to the personalization questions.
4. The computing apparatus of claim 3, wherein the personalization questions comprise questions relating to one or more of: content readability, content formatting, and AI-generated feedback.
5. The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the selected content comprises text selected by the user in a document.
6. The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the program instructions further direct the computing apparatus to display a summary, generated by the LLM, of changes captured in the modified version.
7. The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the program instructions further direct the computing apparatus to display the intent in a graphical card in a user interface and to receive user input in the graphical card comprising the user acceptance of the intent.
Yes. But for the recited additional elements as shown above in bold, the remaining limitations of the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to writing assistance. This type of method of organizing human activity is managing personal behavior including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
The claims also recite mental processes. For example, identifying preferences includes observation, determining modifications includes evaluation, accepting the suggestion includes judgment or opinion, and receiving and displaying modified text includes observation. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d))
No. The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing components (i.e., additional elements that are in bold above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to implement the steps. For example, only a programmed general purpose computing device is needed to implement the claimed process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the abstract idea is merely being linked to a particular technological environment, i.e., an LLM environment. Employing well known technology within an LLM environment to execute the abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the abstract idea to this environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05)
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Relevant Prior Art
The following reference is relevant to Applicant’s invention:
Bent, III et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0126997 A1. This reference teaches a conversational interface for content creating and editing using LLMs.
Beauchamp, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0256762 A1. This reference teaches a method for prompting a LLM to process inputs from multiple user elements. Paragraph 0154 discusses a second prompt to the LLM.
Malak et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2025/0094703 A1. This reference teaches follow-on prompts. See paragraphs 0029, 0047, and 0054.
Szabo et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2025/0258848 A1. This reference teaches suggested alterations for modifiable content using an LLM.
Email Communications
Per MPEP 502.03, Applicant may authorize email communications by filing Form PTO/SB/439, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, via the USPTO patent electronic filing system.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH H ROSEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1850 and email address is elizabeth.rosen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM ET - 7 PM ET.
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, Michael Anderson, can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, 3693
1 See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) (“Examiners should keep in mind that in order to qualify as a "treatment" or "prophylaxis" limitation for purposes of this consideration, the claim limitation in question must affirmatively recite an action that effects a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. An example of such a limitation is a step of "administering amazonic acid to a patient" or a step of "administering a course of plasmapheresis to a patient." If the limitation does not actually provide a treatment or prophylaxis, e.g., it is merely an intended use of the claimed invention or a field of use limitation, then it cannot integrate a judicial exception under the "treatment or prophylaxis" consideration. For example, a step of "prescribing a topical steroid to a patient with eczema" is not a positive limitation because it does not require that the steroid actually be used by or on the patient, and a recitation that a claimed product is a "pharmaceutical composition" or that a "feed dispenser is operable to dispense a mineral supplement" are not affirmative limitations because they are merely indicating how the claimed invention might be used.”)
Prosecution Insights