DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the claims filed 02/18/2026.
Claims 1, 7, 10 and 17 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101
The amendments to the claims do not provide a practical application or an improvement to technology or a technical environment. The claims are abstract and do not overcome the 101 rejection. The rejection is maintained.
103
Lee (KR 20250075919) filed November 11, 2023, which the secondary prior art used, Lee (US 12585646), has the priority date of this foreign priority, anticipates the current claims.
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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (101 Analysis: Step 1). Even if the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (101 Analysis: Step 2a(Prong 1), and if so, Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. (101 Analysis: Step 2a (Prong 2). If additional elements does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception, claim still requires an evaluation of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. If the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (there is an inventive concept in the claim), the claim is eligible. If the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more (there is no inventive concept in the claim), the claim is ineligible. (101 Analysis: Step 2b).
The 2019 PEG explains that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter: a) Mathematical concepts b) Certain methods of organizing human activity and c) Mental processes
Analysis
In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a method, and claims 10 and 17 are directed to an article of manufacture.
Step 2a.1– Identifying an Abstract Idea
The claims recite the steps of “receiving a query… identifying a set of content items … determining, using a first language model, a plurality of sets of contextual information…determining a first set of contextual information… determining a second set of contextual information… inputting…information… and processing…information to generate a response….” The recited limitations fall within the certain methods of a mental process grouping of abstract ideas, specifically, observation and evaluation, for example, receiving a query in a language, breaking down the components of that language and translating it to another language to be presented as a result. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
See MPEP 2106.
Step 2a.2 – Identifying a Practical Application
The claim does not currently recite any additional elements or combination of additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, even in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment do not amount to practical applications. The claim in directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2b
The claim limitations recite “receiving a query… identifying a set of content items … determining, using a first language model, a plurality of sets of contextual information…determining a first set of contextual information… determining a second set of contextual information… inputting…information… and processing…information to generate a response…” are not additional elements and they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. This is also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Therefore, when considering the elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible.
Viewed as a whole, instructions/method claims recite the concept of a mental process. The claims do not currently recite any additional elements or combination of additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a network, and/or merely uses a network as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment.
Dependent claims 2-6, 11-15, and 18-20 discuss functions in more descriptive detail of the steps geared toward the abstract idea. As such, these elements do not provide the significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
Dependent claims 7-9 and 16 provide descriptive language surrounding the abstract idea. As such, these elements do not provide the significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Therefore, based on case law precedent, the claims are claiming subject matter similar to concepts already identified by the courts as dealing with abstract ideas. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561, U.S. 593, 611 (2010)).
The claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claim does not affect an improvement to another technology or technical filed; the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency of independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 USC 101 based on the same rationale.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabhakar et al (US 20240411752) (“Prabhakar”) and further in view of Lee (US 12585646) (“Lee”).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 17, Prabhakar discloses receiving a query (Abstract; ¶ 28, 33-35, 51-59; claim 1);
Prabhakar -receiving a query…Network access control and management server 100 can include one or more language models. For example, server 100 can include a natural language model such as natural language model 1100 configured to facilitate with user intent classification and/or a network-related language model such as network-related language model 1102 configured to facilitate with named entity extraction…a user may input a natural language query with the text “Get info about Edwards.” (¶ 28, 54; claim 1)
identifying a set of content items associated with the query (¶ 28, 35-46, 54-57);
Claim Interpretation – According to the disclosure(¶ 39) ”a content item (e.g., at least one of an email, an article, an internet resource, a text snippet, a video, an image, an audio file, etc.)”
Prabhakar - server 100 may determine, based on natural language model 1100 (see FIG. 2 ), that the intent of this query is to gather information about a user and may extract, based on the network-related language model, “Edwards” as a potential named entity or user… Here, server 100 may find Edwards within a particular list on multi-tenant database 1104 and obtain information (network records) about Edwards (¶ 54, 55)
determining, using a first language model, a plurality of sets of contextual information based upon the set of content items, wherein determining the plurality of sets of contextual information comprises (¶ 31, 36, 39, 54, 55, 65);
Claim Interpretation – According to the disclosure(¶ 50)” (e.g., the contextual information may comprise one or more facts that are relevant to the first query 510).”
Prabhakar - server 100 may determine, based on natural language model 1100 (see FIG. 2 ), that the intent of this query is to gather information about a user and may extract, based on the network-related language model, “Edwards” as a potential named entity or user…obtain information (network records) about Edwards such as Edwards' email address, the number of devices registered under his/her name and their respective MAC address, whether Edwards' device(s) is currently connected to the network, and whether Edwards has recently signed onto the network. (¶ 54, 55)
determining a first set of contextual information based upon the query and a first content item of the set of content items, wherein the first set of contextual information comprises one or more first facts, extracted from the first content item, that are relevant to the query; and determining a second set of contextual information based upon the query and a second content item of the set of content items, wherein the second set of contextual information comprises one or more second facts, extracted from the second content item, that are relevant to the query; and (¶ 36-40, 43-45, 55-58);
Prabhakar - obtain information (network records) about Edwards such as Edwards' email address, the number of devices registered under his/her name and their respective MAC address, whether Edwards' device(s) is currently connected to the network, and whether Edwards has recently signed onto the network. (¶ 55)
Prabhakar does not disclose inputting the plurality of sets of contextual information determined using the first language model, comprising the one or more first facts extracted from the first content item and the one or more second facts extracted from the second content item, to a second language model, and processing, by the second language model, the input plurality of sets of contextual information to generate a response to the query.
Lee teaches inputting the plurality of sets of contextual information determined using the first language model, comprising the one or more first facts extracted from the first content item and the one or more second facts extracted from the second content item, to a second language model, and processing, by the second language model, the input plurality of sets of contextual information to generate a response to the query (Abstract; column 7, line 12-64, column 13, line 7-55; claim 1-8)
Lee - receive user query data; classify a type of the user query data by using a first language model; generate, based on the classified type, a target prompt being one of a first prompt requesting conversion of the user query data into structured data and a second prompt requesting identification of information related to the user query data based on context data; and provide response data corresponding to the user query data by using the target prompt and a second language model. (Abstract; claim 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Prabhakar and Lee in order to provide real-time responses to user inquires using language models (Lee; column 1, line 8-27).
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 18, Prabhakar discloses wherein: determining the first set of contextual information comprises instructing the first language model to use the first content item to provide a second response to the query; and determining the second set of contextual information comprises instructing the first language model to use the second content item to provide a third response to the query (¶ 44, 53, 57, 59).
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 19, Prabhakar discloses wherein: identifying the set of content items associated with the query comprises: identifying, using a content item retrieval tool, a pool of content items, wherein the pool of content items comprises the first content item; determining an entity associated with the query; determining, using a third language model and based upon the first content item, a first relevance classification indicative of whether the first content item is relevant to the entity; and including the first content item in the set of content items based upon the first relevance classification indicating that the first content item is relevant to the entity (¶ 28, 29, 43-47, 54, 55).
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 20, Prabhakar discloses wherein: the pool of content items comprises a third content item; and identifying the set of content items associated with the query comprises: determining, using the third language model and based upon the third content item, a second relevance classification indicative of whether the third content item is relevant to the entity; and not including the third content item in the set of content items based upon the second relevance classification indicating that the third content item is not relevant to the entity (¶ 28, 42, 45, 46, 48, 59, 62-64; claim 13).
Regarding claims 5, and 14, Prabhakar discloses wherein: determining the first set of contextual information and determining the second set of contextual information are performed concurrently (¶ 44-47, 51-58).
Regarding claims 6, and 15, Prabhakar discloses providing the response to the query for display on a client device (¶ 32, 35, 48, 52).
Regarding claim 7, Prabhakar discloses wherein: the first content item comprises a first email received by a first email account; and the second content item comprises a second email received by the first email account (¶ 55, 57 63; claim 8).
Regarding claim 8, Prabhakar discloses wherein: the second language model is the same as the first language model (¶ 28-31, 53, 57, 59).
Regarding claim 9, Prabhakar discloses wherein: the second language model is different than the first language model (Abstract; ¶ 28, 35, 47, 54, 56).
Regarding claim 16, Prabhakar discloses wherein: the query is received from the client device (¶ 32, 33, 51-54, 66; claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Malkemus (US 20250292016) Anticipates the claims.
Saxe et al., (US 20230315722) teaches natural language query and result formulation.
Tambi et al. (US 20240095275) teaches query using casual language model(CLM).
Dubyak et al. (US 10803255) teaches query and multiple language models for results.
Murdock et al (US 20100121840) teaches search query, determining language model.
Huawei (WO 2020238341) teaches three language models, each model processing the information from the previous model to achieve a result.
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 ILSE I IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 5:00pm.
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, NEHA H PATEL can be reached on (571) 270-1492. 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.
/ILSE I IMMANUEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights