DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/31/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/31/26 has been entered. Claims 1-9, 11-21, 23-24 are pending in the application. It is acknowledged that claims 10, 22 have been canceled.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 19, 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the cluster" should be “said each cluster" or “a cluster of the plurality of cluster”. Alternatively, “the cluster” could be removed [Claims 1, 19, 20 lines 6, 9, 8].
Appropriate correction is required. Further, in an effort to practice compact prosecution, each of these limitations has been interpreted similarly as in the provided recommendation for each limitation, above.
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. That is, claim 19 recites a system comprising a “one or more computers” and “one or more storage devices” but fails to mention any specific hardware even when interpreted in light of the specification. That is, since the specification does not limit the invention to hardware-only embodiments, the claimed computers or storage devices could be logical or virtual implementations, for example. Further, the applicant’s specification mentions that “In one implementation, the storage device 630 is a computer-readable medium”. Therefore, claim 19 is directed to software per se.
Claims 1-9, 11-21, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 19, 20 similarly recite receiving a trigger from a user; responsive to the trigger, obtaining text data representing one or more subwords to be processed; obtaining data representing a plurality of clusters, wherein each cluster of the plurality of clusters comprises one or more documents of a plurality of documents, and the cluster is associated with a summary for the cluster; processing the text data to identify one or more clusters of the plurality of clusters that are relevant to the text data using one or more machine learning models by pruning a search space of the plurality of documents, comprising: generating an embedded representation for the text data using the one or more machine learning models; obtaining a respective embedding for each summary of each cluster for the respective embedding for each summary, identifying the cluster for the respective embedding as relevant to the text data in response to determining whether a respective similarity between the respective embedding and the embedded representation for the text data meets a threshold similarity; for each of the one or more identified clusters: identifying one or more documents of the identified cluster that are relevant to the text data using the one or more machine learning models based on a respective document similarity between an embedded representation of the text data and respective embedded representations for the documents of the identified cluster; identifying one or more documents that contradict the text data of the one or more identified documents that are relevant to the text data using the one or more machine learning models; and providing data representing the one or more identified documents that contradict the text data.
The limitations of responsive to the trigger, obtaining text data representing one or more subwords to be processed; processing the text data to identify one or more clusters of the plurality of clusters that are relevant to the text data ..., comprising: generating an embedded representation for the text data ...; obtaining a respective embedding for each summary of each cluster for the respective embedding for each summary, identifying the cluster for the respective embedding as relevant to the text data in response to determining whether a respective similarity between the respective embedding and the embedded representation for the text data meets a threshold similarity; for each of the one or more identified clusters: identifying one or more documents of the identified cluster that are relevant to the text data ... based on a respective document similarity between an embedded representation of the text data and respective embedded representations for the documents of the identified cluster; identifying one or more documents that contradict the text data of the one or more identified documents that are relevant to the text data..., as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes but from the recitation of implementing them on generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the limitations pertaining to “responsive to the trigger, obtaining”, “processing”, “generating an embedded representation”, “obtaining a respective embedding...,identifying the cluster”, “for each of the one or more identified clusters: identifying one or more documents”, and “identifying one or more documents that contradict” in the context of this claim encompass the user judging text data representing subwords, analyzing text data to judge relevant clusters, analyzing the text data and judging relevant clusters, judging an embedding for the text data, judging an embedding for each summary of each cluster for the respective embedding for each summary, judging the cluster as relevant in response to judging a similarity, foe each of the judged clusters: judging documents of the identified clusters that are relevant based on judged similarity, and judging documents that contradict the text 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, claims 1, 19, 20 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of – a system comprising: one or more computers; and one or more storage devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:; one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: receiving a trigger from a user; ... using one or more machine learning models, ...using the one or more machine learning models; ...using the one or more machine learning models; ... using the one or more machine learning models; and providing data representing the one or more identified documents that contradict the text data. The computers and storage devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The additional elements pertaining to “receiving” and “providing” represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. Further, the limitations pertaining to “” is recited as being performed using generic computing components at a high level of generality. In these limitations, computing components are used as a tool to perform generic computer functions. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In the limitations pertaining to “responsive to the trigger, obtaining”, “processing”, “generating an embedded representation”, “obtaining a respective embedding...,identifying the cluster”, “for each of the one or more identified clusters: identifying one or more documents”, and “identifying one or more documents that contradict”, the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The judicial exceptions of “processing”, “generating an embedded representation”, “for each of the one or more identified clusters: identifying one or more documents”, and “identifying one or more documents that contradict” are performed “using the one or more machine learning models”. The one or more machine learning models are used to generally apply the abstract ideas without placing any limits on how they functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcomes of “identify one or more clusters”, “generating an embedded representation”, “identifying one or more documents”, and “identifying one or more documents that contradict”, and, do not include any details about how these “identifying” steps are accomplished by the model(s). See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of “using the one or more machine learning models” in the limitations also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “using the one or more machine learning models” limits these identified judicial exceptions, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning models) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2).
The claims do 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, these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Further, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. The additional element of “using the one or more machine learning models” in limitations (d) and (e) are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these limitations, both individually and in combination, fail to amount to an inventive concept because they merely append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, and thus, do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B). Accordingly, claims 1, 19, 20 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-18 depend on claim 1 and include all the limitations of these claims. Therefore, these claims are directed to the same abstract idea and the analysis must proceed to (Step 2A, Prong 2).
Claim 2 recites additional limitations pertaining to identifying statements that contradict and providing data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging statements that contradict. 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. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitation pertaining to providing does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represents insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. 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 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 element pertaining to identifying represent further mental process steps. The limitation pertaining to the providing represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Claims 3-5 recite additional limitations pertaining to obtaining text data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging text from a transcript or judging an assigning of a segments as text 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. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 3-5 are not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites additional limitations pertaining to each cluster and obtaining data representing a plurality of clusters. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging the data representing clusters comprises observing/analyzing document data, judging document embeddings, judging a grouping of document embeddings, and judging a summary for each of the clusters. 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. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claims 7-8 recite additional limitations pertaining to clustering the document embeddings. These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. 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 claims do 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 represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity, as recited in [0059] of Phan, which states that “Clustering processing may include but are not limited to the well-known k-Nearest Neighbor algorithm or the Agglomerative Clustering algorithm”. Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 9 recites additional limitations pertaining to generating the associated summary. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging an associated summary. 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. Further, the limitation pertaining to “providing” is recited as being performed using generic computing components at a high level of generality. In the limitation pertaining to “wherein each cluster”, computing components are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of (providing the documents). See MPEP 2106.05(f). In the limitation pertaining to “providing”, the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In the judicial exception of “providing the documents for the cluster to a machine learning model”, the machine learning model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the machine learning model functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “generate a summary for input documents, wherein the summary comprises...” and do not include any details about how the “generating” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of “a machine learning model that is configured to” in the limitations also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “a machine learning model that is configured to” limits the identified judicial exception, “generate a summary”, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 represent further mental process steps. The additional element of “providing” is, at best, a mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additional elements “providing” was also found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because it is determined to be an insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine and conventionally activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 9 is not patent eligible.
Claims 11, 12 recite additional limitation pertaining to the documents, metadata, and obtaining a respective embedding. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of filtering clusters to judge qualifying clusters and judge a respective embedding for each summary. 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. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 11, 12 are not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites additional limitations pertaining to identifying documents that are relevant. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging document similarity, judging that the similarity meets a threshold, and judging the document as relevant. 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. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Claims 14-16 recite additional limitations pertaining to identifying one or more documents that contradict. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging one or more documents that contradict the text data comprises: judging a contradiction score, judging that the contradiction score meets a threshold contradiction score, and judging the document as contradicting the text 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. Further, the limitation pertaining to “determining a contradiction score” is recited as being performed using generic computing components at a high level of generality. In the limitation pertaining to “determining a contradictions score“, the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The judicial exception of “determining a contradictions score” is performed “using the machine learning model.” The machine learning model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the trained machine learning model functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “determining a contradiction score” and “generate a contradiction score representing a likelihood that two input sequences of text negate each other” and do not include any details about how the “determining” and “generate” are accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of “using a machine learning model” in the limitations also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “using a machine learning model” limits the identified judicial exception “determining a contradiction score”, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning), and thus, fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Further, the limitations of “determining that the contradiction score meets” and “identifying the document as contradicting” are also directed to mental process steps that encompassing judgements. These additional steps are considered an abstract idea (mental process steps) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 represent further mental process steps. The additional element of “using a machine learning model” in these limitations are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 14-16 are not patent eligible.
Claims 17, 18 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to identifying one or more documents/statements that contradict. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of providing an input prompt, and identifying documents as contradicting. 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. Further, the limitation pertaining to “providing” is recited as being performed using generic computing components at a high level of generality. The limitation pertaining to “providing”, computing components are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of (providing an input prompt). See MPEP 2106.05(f). In the limitation pertaining to “identifying one more document of the input prompt as contradicting”, the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The judicial exception of “indicating whether the text data contradicts” are performed using the language model. The language model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the language model functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “generate an output indicating whether the text data contradicts” and do not include any details about how the “generating an output” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of “a language model” in the limitations also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “a language model” limits the identified judicial exceptions “indicating whether the text data contradicts” this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer models) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Further, the limitation pertaining to identifying one or more documents/statements is directed to a mental process step of judging one or more documents. These additional steps are considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 represent further mental process steps. The additional element of “providing an input prompt...to a language model” is, at best, mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element pertaining to “providing” was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity that is directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 17,18 are not patent eligible.
Claim 21 recites additional limitations pertaining to the plurality of documents and the identifying. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging one or more documents that contradict in less than 10 minutes. 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. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 21 is not patent eligible.
Claim 23 recites additional limitations pertaining to generating a plurality of batches comprised in the identifying. The additional element pertaining to “identifying” represents a mental process step. 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. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitations pertaining to generating batches do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. 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 claims do 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 represent further mental process steps and/or well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 24 recites additional limitations pertaining to identifying one or more documents that contradict. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging documents that contradict. 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. In this limitation, the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The judicial exception of “identifying” is performed “using a respective language model neural network for the batch” The respective language model neural network is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how it actually functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “identifying one or more documents that contradict”, and, do not include any details about how the “identifying” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of “using a respective language model neural network for the batch” in the limitations also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “using a respective language model neural network for the batch” limits the identified judicial exception “identifying” this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (neural networks) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 represent further mental process steps. The additional element of “using a respective language model neural network for the batch” in this limitation is, at best, mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 24 is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to the amendment filed on 03/31/26.
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 10, applicant argues that the claims are patents eligible because they provide an improvement to the technical field of fact-checking in a way that is computationally efficient, and, further cites from the specification.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the limitations associated with the paragraphs cited are directed to mental process steps. That is, “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology” (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Further, the independent claims do not actually recite a “hierarchical search algorithm in latent space”. MPEP 2106.05(a) states that “after the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology.”
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 12, applicant argues that the claim includes components or steps of the invention that provide an improvement.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that, aside from using the machine learning model, these limitations are directed to mental process steps. As aforementioned, “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology” (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gu (US 2025/0094456) discloses Large language model output entailment;
Biddle (US 2020/0175106) discloses managing a supervised machine learning model of a set of documents;
Sarafijanovic (US 2024/0428010) discloses text representation via multi-resolution text clustering in natural language processing;
Yoon (US 2024/0394476) discloses generating summary and system thereof.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P BARTLETT whose telephone number is (469)295-9085. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 11:30-8:30, F 11-3.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached on 571-272-9782. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM P BARTLETT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights