DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
This communication is responsive to the applicant’s amendment dated 3/11/2026. The applicant amended claims 1, 10, 11, 13, 16, and 18. Claims 2, 3, 12, and 17 have been cancelled. Lastly, new claims 21-24 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103, see Remarks (pg. 13, line 16 – pg. 15, line 5), filed 3/11/2026, with respect to claims 1-7, 9-12, 15-17, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-7, 9-12, 15-17, and 20 has been withdrawn. Additionally, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of dependent claims 8, 14, and 19 has also been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101, see Remarks (pg. 11, line 12 – pg. 13, line 15), filed 3/11/2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The examiner believes the claimed invention can be categorized as a mental process and does not show an improvement to a computer or technical field. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained. The applicant is encouraged to go into greater detail of how the LLM is trained.
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 1,4-11,13-16 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites “access a collection of text samples, wherein the text samples include a body of text in natural language and an example summary in natural language of the body of text”, “fine-tune a large language model based on a loss function that compares words shared between the example summary and a generated summary generated by the large language model, wherein the comparison of the words shared includes: evaluating recall and precision for words of more than one of corresponding sentences, paragraphs, or articles; and combining the evaluated recall and precision in the loss function”, “generate an evaluation score for performance of the tuned large language model as a text summarizer based on a second comparison of a reference summary and a second generated summary generated by the tuned large language model”, and “automatically signal that the fine tuning of the tuned large language model is complete in response to the evaluation score satisfying a threshold”.
The limitation of accessing text samples, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media”, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” language, “access” in the context of this claim encompasses reviewing text, which a human can do in the mind. Next, the limitation of comparing words in summaries using a loss function, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a large language model”, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “large language model” language, “compares” in the context of this claim encompasses comparing summaries, which a human can do in the mind. Next, the limitation of generating a score of the summaries, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “large language model” language, “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses scoring summaries, which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper. Lastly, the limitation of signaling the completion of text summarization, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “large language model” language, “signal” in the context of this claim encompasses providing a completion indication, which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements, using “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” and “a large language model” to perform the recited limitations. These elements in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that is amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” and “a large language model” to perform the recited limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 4-9 and 21 are also rejected for the same reasons provided in independent claim 1 above. The dependent claim, including the further recited limitation, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the additional elements, taken individually and in combination do not contribute to an inventive concept. In other words, the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 10 recites, “accessing a collection of text samples, wherein the text samples include a body of text in natural language and an example summary in natural language of the body of text”, “fine-tuning a large language model based on a loss function that compares words shared between the example summary and a generated summary generated by the large language model, wherein the comparison of the words shared includes: evaluating recall and precision for words of more than one of corresponding sentences, paragraphs, or articles; and combining the evaluated recall and precision in the loss function”, “generating an evaluation score for performance of the tuned large language model as a text summarizer based on a second comparison of words shared between a reference summary and a second generated summary generated by the tuned large language model”, and “automatically determining to deploy the tuned large language model to a text summarization task in response to the evaluation score satisfying a threshold”
The limitation of accessing text samples, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “access” in the context of this claim encompasses reviewing text, which a human can do in the mind. Next, the limitation of comparing words in summaries using a loss function, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a large language model”, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “large language model” language, “compares” in the context of this claim encompasses comparing summaries, which a human can do in the mind. Next, the limitation of generating a score of the summaries, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “large language model” language, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses scoring summaries, which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper. Lastly, the limitation to deploy a text summarization task, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “large language model” language, “deploy” in the context of this claim encompasses providing an indication, which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements, using “a large language model” to perform the recited limitations. These elements in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that is amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a large language model” to perform the recited limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 11, 13-15, and 22-24 are also rejected for the same reasons provided in independent claim 10 above. The dependent claim, including the further recited limitation, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the additional elements, taken individually and in combination do not contribute to an inventive concept. In other words, the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 16 recites, “access a collection of text samples, wherein the text samples include a body of text in natural language and an example summary in natural language of the body of text”, “retrain a large language model based on a loss function that compares words shared between the example summary and a generated summary generated by the large language model, wherein the comparison of the words shared includes: evaluating recall and precision for words of more than one of corresponding sentences, paragraphs, or articles; and combining the evaluated recall and precision in the loss function”, “generate an evaluation score for performance of the tuned large language model as a text summarizer based on a second comparison of words shared between a reference summary and a second generated summary generated by the tuned large language model”, “automatically determine to deploy the tuned large language model to a text summarization task in response to the evaluation score satisfying a threshold”.
The limitation of accessing text samples, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” and “processor connected to at least one memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” and “processor connected to at least one memory” language, “access” in the context of this claim encompasses reviewing text, which a human can do in the mind. Next, the limitation of comparing words in summaries using a loss function, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a large language model”, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “large language model” language, “compares” in the context of this claim encompasses comparing summaries, which a human can do in the mind. Next, the limitation of generating a score of the summaries, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “large language model” language, “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses scoring summaries, which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper. Lastly, the limitation to deploy a text summarization task, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “large language model” language, “deploy” in the context of this claim encompasses providing an indication, which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements, using “a large language model”, “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” and “processor connected to at least one memory” to perform the recited limitations. These elements in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that is amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a large language model”, “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” and “processor connected to at least one memory” to perform the recited limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 18-20 are also rejected for the same reasons provided in independent claim 16 above. The dependent claim, including the further recited limitation, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the additional elements, taken individually and in combination do not contribute to an inventive concept. In other words, the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1,4-11,13-16 and 18-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. There are no pending prior art rejections.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance in terms of the prior art:
The closest piece of prior the examiner found was Gharebagh et al. (US 20230259544 A1) which teaches features such as “generate an evaluation score for performance of the tuned large language model as a text summarizer based on a second comparison of a reference summary and a second generated summary generated by the tuned large language model”, however upon further search and consideration the examiner deems the prior art of record whether taken alone or in combination fails to teach “wherein the comparison of the words shared includes: evaluating recall and precision for words of more than one of corresponding sentences, paragraphs, or articles; and combining the evaluated recall and precision in the loss function” in combination with the other claim features, therefore claims 1, 4-11, 13-16 and 18-24 as a whole are allowable in terms of the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 ZEESHAN SHAIKH whose telephone number is (703)756-1730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571) 272-7602. 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.
/ZEESHAN MAHMOOD SHAIKH/Examiner, Art Unit 2658
/RICHEMOND DORVIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights