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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to amendment filed on 12 August 2026 Claims 1, 9, 14, and 15 have been amended. Claims 4, 7, and 13 have been cancelled. Claim 1-3,5-6,8-12 and 14-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 August 2026 has been entered.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Step 1: The claims 1-3, 6, and 8 are a media, claims 9-12 and 14 are a method and claims 15-20 are a system. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101. However, the claims 1-3,5-6,8-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A-Prong 1: independent The claims (1, 9, and 15) recite the limitation of converting a set of actionable guidelines for the plurality of guideline categories and determining brand conformity data indicating an extent of conformity of the brand-inclusive content to at least one actionable guideline of the set of actionable guidelines. The converting limitation, as drafted is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers user edit/optimizing the set of guidelines for whether brand-inclusive content conforms to the actionable guidelines for the brand, can be done by pen and paper for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other the reciting “via one or more generative artificial intelligence (AI) models” , nothing the claims precludes the identifying step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, “via one or more generative artificial intelligence (AI) models” language, the claim encompasses the user reading the actionable guidelines for the plurality of guidelines for identifying a set of guidelines. This limitation is a mental process.
The determining limitation, as drafted is also a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers compliance of the brand data with at least one actionable guidelines in mind for the recitation of the generic computer components. That is, other the reciting “via one or more generative artificial intelligence (AI) models” , nothing the claims precludes the identifying step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, “via one or more generative artificial intelligence (AI) models” language, the claim encompasses the user simply evaluating the compline of the brand inclusive content to various brand guideline.
The receiving a selection steps, is also a process, under its broadest reasonable intepration selecting the displayed edited/optimized the actionable insight to apply or modify the brand inclusive content to confirm the brand match fails into mental step.
Step 2A-Prong 2: The claims recite additional limitation of a processor when executed the instruction for performing the generic computer functions, one or more generative artificial intelligence for performing both the identifying and the determining steps, obtaining a set of brand guidelines and brand inclusive content and graphical user interface. The generating prompt is also recited at high-level of generality and merely automating the generic steps of providing a guidelines. The processors and instructions that perform the generic computer functions is recited at high level of generality and merely automates the generic computer functions. The one or more generative artificial model is also recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the identifying and the determining steps. The obtaining steps is reciting at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering a set of brand guidelines and data indicating an extent to conformity of the brand-inclusive content in use of identifying, determining and comparing steps). The interface limitation is also recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the outputting/displaying data. Accordingly, these additional element does 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 the abstract idea.
Furthmore, the claims recites a Mental processes because extracting guidelines, comparing content, and evaluating conformity are things humans have historically done mentally or on paper and Certain methods of organizing human activity because managing brand compliance and marketing workflows.
The claim attempts to use a generative AI model to automate this process. However, simply reciting a "generative AI model" or a "guideline extractor" to process text and graphics is generally treated by the USPTO as using a generic computer to automate an abstract business practice.
Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, 10-14 and 16-20, these claims recite limitation that futher define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. The claims do not contain any additional elements per step 2A prong 2. Therefore , they are considered patent ineligible for the same reason as above.
The closes prior to the applicants claimed invention
Mysore et al (US Patent No., 12.111,754 B1) focused on the technology evaluates the compliance of an AI application with predefined guidelines. The technology obtains a set of guidelines defining operation boundaries of the AI application and constructs test cases associated with each guideline (abstract) , obtaining a set of brand guidelines associated with a plurality of guideline categories indicating a type of guideline used to indicate how to represent a brand(Fig. 6, 602, discloses obtain a set of regulatory guidelines defining one or more option boundaries of the AI application), the system constructs a set of test cases associated with each guideline that covers various scenarios derived from the regulatory requirements. These test cases can include prompts, expect outcomes, and/or expect explanations (Col. 4, lines 4-18).
MASCHMEYER et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0320444 Al) focused on a computer-implemented method is disclosed. The method includes: obtaining at least one output of a generative model based on input of a first text prompt; presenting the at least one output via a user interface; receiving, via the user interface, user selection of a desired portion of the at least one output; modifying the first text prompt based on the user selection to obtain a second text prompt; and providing the second text prompt as input to the generative model for obtaining a second output(abstract) .
Li et al (US Pub., No., 2019/0311271 A1) discloses an examples of analyzing documents are defined. In an example, a request to analyze a document may be received.
A knowledge model corresponding to a guideline associated with the document may be obtained. The knowledge model may include at least one of a hypothetical question and a
logical flow to determine an inference to the hypothetical question.
Berry et al (Patent., No., 11,461,790 B1) discloses technologies for automatically validating marketing asset compliance include a marketing compliance server configured to receive a marketing asset file. The marketing asset file includes a data interchange document containing multiple objects and multiple key/value pairs. Each object is associated with a different group of the key/value pairs. The server extracts the data interchange document from the marketing asset file, parses the document to identify the different key/value pair groups, and identifies the objects of the document based on the identification of the different key/value pair groups.
Mico (US Pub., No., 2024/0428260 A1) discloses systems, devices, and methods are disclosed herein of an artificial intelligence-powered contextual customer service automation solution using logic trees enhanced with the mission and corporate values-based generative AI prompts to control responses with brand characteristics and tone.
Tao (Pub., No., 2019/0325626 A1) discloses this disclosure describes various aspects that involve dynamically generating content, such as brand-compliant content and/or creative content, for delivery via electronic communication channels or other communication channels. In some respects, a brand engine provides a profile-development interface. The brand development engine builds a brand profile having constraints and stylization guidance based on inputs to the profile-development interface
Niilo Lintulahti (Creating aa strategy for AI integration in content marketing, Haaga-Heli University of Applied Science 2023) discloses this thesis is focused on understanding the benefits and challenges artificial intelligent offers when used in content marketing. For example, the ethical side and potential to bias. This thesis will not describe artificial intelligence in a specific way, but the general information will be discussed. The international aspect required by the degree program of all theses is covered by the fact that the industry is international by nature
None of the above reference teaches of suggests that the identified set of actionable guidelines for the plurality of guideline categories by generating a first prompt including text and/or one or more graphic indication the set of brand guidelines and text listing the plurality of guideline categories and inputting the first prompt into one or mor generative artificial intelligence (AI) models, and causing display, via a user interface, of the brand conformity data including the measure of conformity of the brand-inclusive content to the at least one actionable guideline and including , one or more actionable insights indicating one or more modifications to apply to the brand-inclusive content to improve brand conformity with the at least one actionable guideline.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 35 U.S.C 101 rejection filed on 12 August 2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, and 14-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ arguments of the pending claims is not directed to a mere abstract idea of evaluating brand compliance but instate to a specific technological solution that improve the functioning of computer system used to analyze content with generative artificial intelligence models . The claim integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and receive significantly more than a generic implantation of a mental process is not persuasive.
In general, the claims at issue are directed to an abstract idea because the claims at issue are directed to "methods of organizing human activity" (branding/marketing analysis) and "mental processes" (comparing content to guidelines), which are abstract ideas.
The use of "generative AI models" to perform the analysis does not inherently make the claim non-abstract if it is just automating a task a person could do mentally or with traditional software. The steps of obtaining guidelines, comparing content, and determining conformity are considered data analysis/manipulation.
Futher, the claimed at issue do not provide improvement to the functions of the computer system or provide a solution to the technological problem. For example, see paragraph [0001] of applicants’ specification, the paragraph clearly states that Brand guidelines, including tone of voice, color schemes, and logos, serve as a foundation for content creation and validation in
an effort to ensure consistency across various channels, simply put, these limitations merely describe generates brand conformity data such as scores, pass/fail results, and suggestions and user can review or apply the suggested change, which is clearly a business arrangement in its purest form. Thus, the claimed limitation is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicants’ arguments of “as explained in the specification, conventional brand compliance validation relies heavily on manual review the subjective human interpretation of complex brand guidelines (spec. paragraph [0036]-[0038]. Brand identify may encompass color, logos, spacing, fonts, layouts, voice and tone imagery another multimodal elements. Validating compliance across these heterogenous content dimensional is time-consuming, inconsistent and error-prone…, is not persuasive. Evaluating whether content conforms to brand guidelines and suggesting edits is a task that historically has been performed by human marketing teams and graphic designers which fails into mental process or certain method of organizing human acidity grouping. The AI Element: Merely automating a known human mental process using generic, off-the-shelf automation tools—even sophisticated ones like "generative artificial intelligence (AI) models" or "JSON objects"—does not automatically remove the claim from being considered "abstract" under current USPTO guidelines.
Applicants’ arguments of the pending claims provide a specific technical solution to the technical problem. The claim recited obtaining brand guidelines assocted with a plurlity of guideline categories and identifying a set of actionable guideline by generating first prompt that include the brand guideline and guidelines categories and inputting the prompt into one or more generative AI models…, is not persuasive. The claimed limitation simply says "take brand data, make a prompt, and use a generic AI model to get actionable guidelines, merely a routine human activity (reading brand rules and summarizing them) that you are simply telling a generic computer to do faster. The claimed element must provide a technical improvement to a computer or data processing capability, rather than just using a computer as a tool to automate a business process.
Applicants’ arguments of that the claim required structured prompt generation that programmatically transforms static guidelines document into machine-actionable evaluation criteria using the language models (LLMs), large vision models (LVMs), or multimodal large language models (MLLMs), as described…, is not persuasive. The core concept of claim contain an abstract idea and merely utilizing generic, off-the-shelf LLMs, LVMs, or MLLMs on a standard computer setup to process new data sets will result in a rejection. The claimed invention must introduce a novel combination of steps, a unique multi-agent orchestration framework, or a deterministic translation pipeline that isn't considered conventional or routine in the AI engineering space.
Applicants’ augments of the claim futher recited generating a second prompt that includes brand-inclusive content and the set of actionable guidelines and inputting the second prompt into the generative AI model to determine brand conformity data .., is not persuasive. Manipulating text prompts and utilizing a generative AI model to output data, under U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) falls under the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Furthermore, evaluating "brand conformity" or adherence to brand guidelines can be viewed as a traditional business, marketing, or compliance activity which falls into Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps of taking brand guidelines, weaving them into a new prompt, and verifying if a text matches could theoretically be performed by a human using a pen and paper, under the USPTO guidelines it as a mental process. Merely using a "generative AI model" or a "generic computer" to automate prompt generation will not save the claim from being labeled an abstract idea.
Applicants’ arguments of the amended claim 1 also recited deteriming brand conformity data using context data comprising a JSON object transformed from an HTML structure. As describe in the speciation the HTML structure is converted into a JSON representation that encapsulate hierarchical relationships amount content elements together with associated styling information… is not persuasive. Evaluating "brand conformity" is fundamentally a business or administrative practice (organizing human activity). Simply automating this evaluation on a generic computer by translating data formats (HTML to JSON) is treated as an abstract idea (specifically, collecting, analyzing, and manipulating data.
Applicants’ argument of the claimed invention futher improves how the AI-based evaluation system process digital content by providing context data in the form of an HTML-derived JSON representation that preserve structural and styling information assocted with the content is not persuasive. Evaluating "brand conformity" is fundamentally a business or administrative practice (organizing human activity). Simply automating this evaluation on a generic computer by translating data formats (HTML to JSON) is treated as an abstract idea (specifically, collecting, analyzing, and manipulating data.
Applicants’ autotmcially identifying compliance failures and providing targeted revision guidance , the system reduce iterative review cycle… is not persuasive. The system fundamentally processes information (analyzing brand assets, identifying deviations, and outputting suggestions), which is classified it as an abstract idea—specifically under "certain methods of organizing human activity" or a "mental process". Merely automating this using generic AI or software will result in a § 101 rejection.
Applicants’ arguments of the amended claim further receive receiving a selection of an actionable insight displayed via the graphic al user interfaced and based on the selection automatically applying a modification to the brand-inclusive content to improve conformity with actionable guideline. This is not merely pressing information for a user to consider. Rather the claimed system uses the generated brand commit data to drive automated modification of underlying digital content is not persuasive. The claimed elements recites a processes of a computer implemented method executing the step of receiving a selection and automatically applying the modification, and this mechanism as an abstract idea. Specifically, categorized as a "method of organizing human activity" (marketing/branding rules) or a "mental process" (identifying an insight and correcting text/graphics to match a rule). In order to overcome the 35 U.S.C 101 rejections under the Alice/Mayo framework, the claim must be structured to prove it is a practical application that improves user interface or computing operations, rather than just a computer-implemented abstract business process.
Furthermore, under Step 2: The claims uses generic computer components: "one or more computer storage media," "one or more processors," "graphical user interface". Using Generative AI as a "black box" to perform analysis is generally not considered an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself but rather using the computer as a tool to execute an abstract process.
Under step 2B. As discussed above, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic
computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A
or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, the 35 U.S.C 101 rejections with respect to claims 1-3,5-6,8-12 and 14-20 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABA DAGNEW whose telephone number is (571)270-3271. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:45.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270 -3948. 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.
/SABA DAGNEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights