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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-18 and 20 are pending.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A method of generating recommendations, the method comprising: receiving, by a recommendation generating device, from a user, a query associated with a subject data; identifying an intent associated with the query associated with the subject data; generating a plurality of vectors associated with the subject data, based on the query and the intent associated with the query; selecting, by the recommendation generating device, in real time, one or more relevant vectors associated with subject data from the plurality of vectors associated with the subject data, based on the query, wherein the plurality of vectors associated with the subject data are stored in a database; inputting, by the recommendation generating device, vectors associated with the query along with the one or more relevant vectors associated with subject data based on the query, to a Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) model; and receiving, by the recommendation generating device, from the GenAI model, recommendations corresponding to the vectors associated with the query and the one or more relevant vectors associated with subject data based on the query inputted to the GenAI model”.
The limitations of “A method of generating recommendations, the method comprising:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a recommendation generating device” to perform the claimed steps. The “recommendation generating device” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a recommendation generating device” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving, by a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also recites the additional element of “from the GenAI model” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a recommendation generating device” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving, by that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the subject data comprises internal data and external data associated with the query, wherein the internal data comprises: engineering data, connectors data, and plugins data associated with the subject data, and wherein the external data comprises: customer feedback data, competitor analysis data, and pricing data associated with the subject data”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: identifying sentiment associated with the query associated with the subject data, using a sentiment analysis model; and generating the plurality of vectors associated with the subject data, based on the sentiment”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1 further comprising: extracting context associated with the query associated with the subject data, using a context analysis model; and generating the plurality of vectors associated with the subject data, based on the context”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the subject data is associated with one of: a text format, an audio format, and a video format”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 5, further comprising: converting the audio format and the video format associated with the subject data into text format, wherein the plurality of vectors associated with the subject data are generated based on the text format associated with the subject data, and wherein the text format is a JSON format”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the subject data further comprises historical data corresponding to failure incidents and troubleshooting incidents”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1 further comprising: selecting the GenAI model from a plurality of GenAI models, based on the query and the one or more relevant vectors associated with subject data based on the query”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A system for generating recommendations, the system comprising: a processor; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores a plurality of instructions, which upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to: receive, from a user, a query associated with a subject data; identify an intent associated with the query associated with the subject data; generate a plurality of vectors associated with the subject data, based on the query and the intent associated with the query; select, in real time, one or more relevant vectors associated with subject data from the plurality of vectors associated with the subject data, based on the query, wherein the plurality of vectors associated with the subject data are stored in a database; input, vectors associated with the query along with the one or more relevant vectors associated with subject data based on the query, to a Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) model; and receive, from the GenAI model, recommendations corresponding to the vectors associated with the query and the one or more relevant vectors associated with subject data based on the query inputted to the GenAI model”.
The limitations of ““a processor; and a memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a system” and “a processor; and a memory” to perform the claimed steps. The “system” and “processor; and a memory” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a system” and “a processor; and a memory” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receive, from a user, a query associated with a subject data” and “receive, MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a system” and “a processor; and a memory” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receive, from a user, a query associated with a subject data” and “receive,
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions for generating recommendations, the computer-executable instructions configured for: receiving, from a user, a query associated with a subject data; identifying an intent associated with the query associated with the subject data; generating a plurality of vectors associated with the subject data, based on the query and the intent associated with the query; selecting, in real time, one or more relevant vectors associated with subject data from the plurality of vectors associated with the subject data, based on the query, wherein the plurality of vectors associated with the subject data are stored in a database; inputting vectors associated with the query along with the one or more relevant vectors associated with subject data based on the query, to a Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) model; and receiving, from the GenAI model, recommendations corresponding to the vectors associated with the query and the one or more relevant vectors associated with subject data based on the query inputted to the GenAI model”.
The limitations of “generating a plurality of vectors associated with the subject data, based on the query and the intent associated with the query; selecting, in real time, one or more relevant vectors associated with subject data from the plurality of vectors associated with the subject data, based on the query, wherein the plurality of vectors associated with the subject data are stored in a database; inputting vectors associated with the query along with the one or more relevant vectors associated with subject data based on the query, to a Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) model; and
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” to perform the claimed steps. The “non-transitory computer-readable medium” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving, from a user, a query associated with a subject data” and “receiving,
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving, from a user, a query associated with a subject data” and “receiving,
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 7-12, 14-18 and 20 are allowable over the prior art but have outstanding 35 USC 101 rejections that must be resolved.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, applicant argues that the claims “do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations” that are generally similar to various court opinions, and “[w]hen properly construed in light of the specification, claim 1 is directed to a computer- implemented, Al-driven recommendation generation mechanism that operates on vectorized representations and generative models, and therefore cannot be practically performed in the human mind” (see applicant arguments, pages 10-12). However, it is not clear how the cited court opinions are similar nor specifically why the argued limitations cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Applicant further argues that the claim 1 limitations of “identifying an intent associated with a query associated with subject data, and generating a plurality of vectors associated with the subject data based on the query and the identified intent”, that the “identification of intent is not a mere mental observation, but involves natural language understanding, contextual entity tagging, and inference using trained Al models” and that “Such operations require computational models trained on large-scale data and cannot be practically or meaningfully performed in the human mind” (see applicant arguments, page 13). However, there is nothing in claim 1 related to a requirement that computational models are trained on large-scale data and therefore this argument is not convincing.
Applicant further argues that the claimed “step of generating a plurality of vectors associated with the subject data based on the query and the identified intent involves transforming subject data into multi-dimensional vector representations conditioned on both query semantics and inferred intent”, that “these vectors are not generic representations but are dynamically generated using machine learning techniques that incorporate contextual intent and enterprise knowledge”, and that “creation and manipulation of such high-dimensional vector embeddings, particularly in response to real-time queries, is inherently computational and cannot be performed mentally” (applicant arguments, page 13). However, there is nothing in the claims related to any “dynamically generated machine learning techniques that incorporate contextual intent and enterprise knowledge” nor any “manipulation of such high-dimensional vector embeddings” that are “inherently computational” as argued. Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Applicant further argues that the claimed “selecting, in real time, one or more relevant vectors from a plurality of stored vectors based on the query, wherein the vectors are stored in a database” requires “searching and ranking across a potentially large vector space, involving similarity computations (e.g., cosine similarity or other embedding-based retrieval mechanisms)” and “efficient data structures, indexing, and numerical computations across high-dimensional spaces, which are not feasible to perform mentally or with pen and paper” (applicant arguments, pages 13-14). However, there is nothing in the claims related to any “a potentially large vector space”, any “similarity computations (e.g., cosine similarity or other embedding-based retrieval mechanisms)” nor any requirement for “efficient data structures, indexing, and numerical computations across high-dimensional spaces”. Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Applicant further argues that the claimed “inputting vectors associated with the query along with the selected vectors to a Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) model, and receiving recommendations generated by the GenAI model” involves “involves token-based processing, neural network inference, and probabilistic text generation, all of which are inherently tied to specialized computing architectures and cannot be replicated by human cognition” (applicant arguments, page 14). However, there is nothing in the claims related to any “token-based processing, neural network inference, and probabilistic text generation” nor any “specialized computing architectures”. Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention defines a “structured pipeline” using at least “intent identification using trained AI models” (applicant arguments, page 14). However, there is nothing in the claims about using “trained AI models” for “intent identification”, and even if any AI models are used they would be considered additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception, applying (using "apply it" or an equivalent) mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Applicant further argues that “leverages enterprise-scale data, trained machine learning models, and generative Al systems” and that “volume, dimensionality, and dynamic nature of such data and models render the claimed invention's operations impractical for human execution” (applicant arguments, page 15). However, there is nothing in the claims related to these features and therefore this argument is not convincing.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, applicant argues that:
The Examiner asserts that the claimed invention does not integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application and that the recited "recommendation generating device" merely represents a generic computer performing routine functions. The Applicant respectfully disagrees. When properly considered in light of the specification, claim 1 recites a specific, technology-driven architecture that meaningfully integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, thereby satisfying Step 2A, Prong Two of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
(applicant arguments, page 18)
However, Step 2A, Prong Two, requires identifying whether the claim recites any additional elements beyond the judicial exception, and evaluate those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). The applicant makes not mention of any the additional elements identified in the rejections of record nor evaluating how they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Applicant further argues that:
At the outset, the claimed invention is not directed to merely "applying" an abstract idea on a generic computer. Rather, as clearly supported by paragraphs [0046]-[0055] and [0057]-[0063] of the as filed specification, the recommendation generating device is a specialized system comprising multiple coordinated modules, including an intent identifying module, vector generation and storage mechanisms (vector DB), real- time retrieval engine, and a Generative AI (GenAl) model (e.g., Azure OpenAl), all operating within a distributed cloud-based architecture (e.g., Azure Functions, Data Factory, and storage services). This architecture is specifically designed to process enterprise-scale data and generate context-aware recommendations in real time.
(applicant arguments, page 19)
However, there is nothing in the claims related to any “specialized system comprising multiple coordinated modules” as argued, and therefore the argument that the architecture is specially designed is not convincing.
Applicant further argues that:
Importantly, the claim recites identifying an intent associated with the query and generating a plurality of vectors based on both the query and the identified intent, which is a specific improvement in how data is represented and processed within Al-driven systems. As described in paragraph [0047] of the as filed specification, the intent identifying module performs contextual understanding and entity tagging using trained machine learning models, and such identified intent directly governs how subject data is transformed into vector representations. This is not a generic data processing step, but a technological improvement in vector generation, enabling semantically aligned and context-aware embeddings that enhance downstream retrieval and recommendation accuracy.
(applicant arguments, page 20)
However, Step 2A, Prong Two, requires identifying whether the claim recites any additional elements beyond the judicial exception, and evaluate those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). The applicant makes no mention of any the additional elements identified in the rejections of record nor evaluating how they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Applicant further argues that:
Further, the step of selecting, in real time, one or more relevant vectors from a plurality of vectors stored in a vector database represents a technical improvement in data retrieval mechanisms. As described in paragraphs [0051] and [0055] of the as filed specification, the system of the claimed invention leverages a vector DB integrated with cloud infrastructure to perform scalable, low-latency similarity search across high-dimensional embeddings. This enables efficient handling of large-scale enterprise datasets, which would otherwise be computationally infeasible. Such real-time vector retrieval is not a mere mental process or insignificant extra-solution activity, but a core technological operation that improves system performance and responsiveness.
(applicant arguments, pages 20-21)
However, the “selecting” step was not identified as an additional element and that the argued “vector DB integrated with cloud infrastructure to perform scalable, low-latency similarity search across high-dimensional embeddings” is not found in the claim language. Therefore, this argument is not convincing.
Applicant further argues that:
Additionally, the claimed invention recites inputting vectors associated with the query along with selected vectors into a GenAI model and receiving recommendations, which constitutes a specific integration of retrieval mechanisms with generative Al models. As described in paragraphs [0048] and [0058]-[0063] of the as filed specification, the GenAI model operates on vectorized inputs to generate contextually relevant recommendations by leveraging historical incident data, product documentation, and customer feedback. This results in improved accuracy, personalization, and timeliness of recommendations, thereby enhancing system functionality in practical applications such as automated testing, bug triaging, and customer support.
(applicant arguments, page 20)
However, Step 2A, Prong Two, requires identifying whether the claim recites any additional elements beyond the judicial exception, and evaluate those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). The applicant makes no mention of any the additional elements identified in the rejections of record nor evaluating how they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Applicant further argues that:
Moreover, the Examiner's characterization of "receiving" and "outputting" steps as insignificant extra-solution activity is misplaced. In the claimed invention, these steps are integral to the end-to-end processing pipeline, enabling interaction with users and integration with enterprise systems. They are not tangential, but are necessary components of a practical, real-world application of the claimed invention.
(applicant arguments, page 21)
However, Step 2A, Prong Two, requires identifying whether the claim recites any additional elements beyond the judicial exception, and evaluate those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). While the applicant contends that interpreting the “receiving” and “outputting” steps as insignificant extra-solution (i.e. additional elements) is “misplaced”, overcoming a 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2A, Prong Two, requires the evaluation of such additional elements to determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B. If there are no additional elements in the claim, then it cannot be eligible. Therefore, these arguments are not convincing (or they would render the claim ineligible if true).
With respect to Step 2B, applicant argues that:
The Examiner's conclusion that the claimed invention lacks an inventive concept under Step 2B is respectfully erroneous and is based on an oversimplified and improper characterization of the claim elements. The Examiner has reduced the claimed invention to a generic "apply it on a computer" formulation, which fails to consider the specific, non-conventional, and technically integrated combination of elements recited in the claimed invention.
At the outset, it is critical to emphasize that Step 2B is not satisfied by merely labeling components as "generic". The proper inquiry is whether the claimed elements as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Here, the claim recites a highly specific and structured Al-driven architecture that is neither routine nor conventional.
First, the claimed invention requires identifying an intent associated with the query and generating a plurality of vectors associated with subject data based on both the query and the identified intent. As supported by paragraph [0047] as filed specification, this is performed by a specialized intent identifying module trained on enterprise datasets, which performs contextual understanding, entity tagging, and semantic interpretation. Critically, the identified intent is not an output for display but is used as a controlling parameter to dynamically generate vector representations of subject data. This intent-conditioned vector generation is a non-conventional operation that fundamentally alters how data is represented and processed within the system. The Examiner has not cited, and cannot demonstrate, that such a mechanism is well-understood, routine, or conventional.
Second, the claim recites real-time selection of relevant vectors from a plurality of vectors stored in a database. As described in paragraphs [0051] and [0055] of the as filed specification, this involves the use of a vector database integrated with cloud infrastructure to perform similarity-based retrieval across high-dimensional embeddings. This is not a generic database lookup, but a specialized computational technique requiring indexing structures, similarity metrics, and scalable retrieval algorithms. The ability to perform such operations in real time over large-scale enterprise data is itself a technical improvement and cannot be dismissed as routine or conventional.
Third, the claim recites inputting both query vectors and selected subject data vectors into a Generative Al model to generate recommendations. This is not a mere invocation of a generic model, but a specific integration of retrieval-based vector representations with generative Al inference. As described in paragraphs [0048] and [0058]-[0063] of the as filed specification, the GenAl model operates on structured vector inputs derived through intent-aware processing and real-time retrieval, enabling context- aware, accurate, and dynamically generated recommendations. This hybrid architecture combining intent modeling, vector search, and generative Al is a technical solution that is neither conventional nor routine.
Importantly, the Examiner's assertion that the "recommendation generating device" is merely a generic computer is incorrect. The specification clearly describes a multi- component, cloud-based system architecture involving Azure OpenAl services, vector databases, Azure Functions, and data orchestration pipelines. These components collectively implement a distributed, scalable, and high-performance system for processing enterprise-scale data. Such an architecture goes well beyond a generic computer performing basic functions.
Further, the Examiner's characterization of "receiving" steps as insignificant extra- solution activity is misplaced. In the claimed invention, these steps are functionally tied to the operation of the system, enabling real-time ingestion of user queries and integration with Al models. Without these steps, the claimed pipeline cannot operate. They are not incidental, but essential to the claimed technical process.
Additionally, the Examiner's assertion that the use of a GenAl model is merely an instruction to "apply it" ignores the fact that the claim recites a specific manner of using the model, i.e., by inputting a combination of query vectors and selected subject data vectors generated through intent-aware processing. This is a particularized application of generative AI, not a generic invocation.
When considered as a whole, the claimed invention provides a non-conventional and ordered combination of elements that yields significant technical advantages, including:
. Substantial improvement in recommendation accuracy through intent-driven vector representations (see paragraphs [0047], [0063] of the as filed specification);
. Reduction in computational latency and improved scalability via real-time vector retrieval using specialized vector databases (see paragraphs [0051], [0055] of the as filed specification);
. Efficient handling of large-scale, heterogeneous enterprise data using distributed cloud infrastructure; and
. Automation of complex technical workflows such as bug triaging, clustering, and recommendation generation (see paragraph [0054]-[0056] of the as filed specification).
These are not generic or abstract improvements they are direct consequences of the claimed invention's technical architecture and processing steps.
Finally, the Examiner has not provided any evidence that the claimed combination of intent identification + intent-conditioned vector generation + real-time vector retrieval + GenAl-based recommendation synthesis is well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field. In absence of such evidence, the rejection under Step 2B cannot be sustained.
(applicant arguments, pages 24-28)
With all due respect, none of the applicant arguments with respect to Step 2B address the requirements for “significantly more” described in the 2019 PEG. For Step 2B, the carry over identification of additional element(s) from Step 2A, Prong Two, related to insignificant extra-solution activity are re-evaluated and if any of these additional elements or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than well-understood, routine conventional activity (WURC), this finding may indicate that the additional element is significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05. The applicant undertakes no such re-evaluation of the additional elements found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in their arguments related to Step 2B, and therefore their arguments are not convincing.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-18 and 20 are allowable over the prior art but have outstanding 35 USC 101 rejections that must be resolved.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Jay A Morrison/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights