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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 10, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action has been issued in response to Applicant’s Communication of amended application S/N 18/799,830 filed on April 10, 2026. Claims 1 to 20 are currently pending with the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite linking comments, generating vector representations, identifying a set of comments, generating a prompt, and determining aggregate information and a priority, and performing a task.
The limitation of linking comments, which specifically recites “linking comments from the plurality of comments with features of the plurality of features”, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by an online system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, but for the “by an online system” language, “linking”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally, with the aid of pen and paper, associating comments with features. The limitation of generating a vector, which specifically recites “generating a vector representation of each of the plurality of comments and a vector representation of each of the plurality of features”, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the online system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, but for the “by the online system” language, “generating”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally and with the aid of pen and paper, writing down a vector representation of the comments and the features.
The limitation of identifying a set of comments, which specifically recites “for each of the plurality of features, identifying a set of comments whose vector representations are similar to the vector representation of the feature based on a vector distance between the vector representation of the feature and the vector representations of the plurality of comments stored in the vector database”, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the online system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, but for the “by the online system” language, “identifying”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally and with the aid of pen and paper, identifying comments that are similar to the features, based on a vector distance between the representations generated in the previous step, where based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, the distances can be an existing value that can be read from a sheet of paper, and be compared mentally. The limitation of generating a prompt, which specifically recites “generating a prompt for input to a machine learning based language model, the prompt describing the feature and corresponding one or more comments whose vector representations are identified as similar to the vector representation of the feature, wherein the prompt instructs the machine learning based language model to determine whether each of the one or more comments is associated with the feature”, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the online system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, but for the “by the online system” language, “generating”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally and with the aid of pen and paper, writing down a question describing the comments and features based on the comments identified in the previous step.
Continuing with the analysis, the limitation of determining aggregate information, which specifically recites “determining aggregate information describing linked one or more comments for each feature from the plurality of features”, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the online system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, but for the “by the online system” language, “determining”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally and with the aid of pen and paper, writing down information regarding associations for the features. The limitation of determining a priority, which specifically recites “determining that a priority of a first feature is higher than a priority of a second feature based on a comparison of the aggregate information describing the linked comments for the first feature and the aggregate information describing the linked comments for the second feature”, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the online system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, but for the “by the online system” language, “determining”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally and with the aid of pen and paper, comparing the previously determined information to identify a high priority feature.
Finally, the limitation of performing a task, which specifically recites “in response to determining that the first feature is high-priority s high-priority compared to the second feature, performing a task associated with the first feature ahead of a task associated with the second feature”, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the online system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, but for the “by the online system” language, “performing”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally and with the aid of pen and paper, doing a task related to the high priority feature determined in the previous step, which is not comprehensively defined, and therefore, could be a task that can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements – “storing, by an online system, information describing an item, the information comprising a plurality of features of the item”, “receiving a plurality of comments from users, each comment representing user feedback received via a channel from a plurality of channels of the online system”, “storing, in a vector database, vector representations of the plurality of features and vector representations of the plurality of comments”, “providing the prompt to the machine learning based language model for execution of the machine learning based language model”, “receiving a response generated by the machine learning based language model based on the prompt, the response describing an association between the feature and at least one of the one or more comments”, “storing a link representing the association between the feature and the at least one of the one or more comments”, one or more computer processors, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. The limitations “storing, by an online system, information describing an item, the information comprising a plurality of features of the item”, “storing, in a vector database, vector representations of the plurality of features and vector representations of the plurality of comments”, and “storing a link representing an association between the feature and the comment”, amount to data storing steps, and which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Continuing with the analysis of the additional limitations, the limitations “receiving a plurality of comments from users, each comment representing user feedback received via a channel from a plurality of channels of the online system”, “providing the prompt to the machine learning based language model for execution of the machine learning based language model”, and “receiving a response generated by the machine learning based language model based on the prompt, the response describing an association between the feature and at least one of the one or more comments”, amount to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The one or more computer processors and non-transitory computer readable storage medium in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The insignificant extra-solution activity identified above, which include the data storing and the data gathering steps, is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); (iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Mm., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “generating a vector representation of the feature and storing the vector representation of the feature in a vector database”. The generating limitation can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore is further elaborating on the abstract idea. The storing limitation amounts to data storing steps, which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), and recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Mm., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Same rationale applies to claims 3 to 8, since they recite limitations that similarly amount to elements that are further elaborating on the abstract idea, and data gathering and data storing steps.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “a comment received from a user represents: an email communication received from the user, a natural language text received from the user via a chat interface, or a transcript of a call received from the user”, which is tying the abstract idea to a field of use by further specifying the target data, and which is simply an attempt to limit the application of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment; merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception does not meaningfully limit the claim (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Additionally, the claims do not include a requirement of anything other than conventional, generic computer technology for executing the abstract idea, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Same rationale applies to claims 11 to 18, and 20 since they recite similar limitations.
Claims 1 to 20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to arguments filed on April 10, 2026. Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully and respectfully considered, but are not persuasive.
In regards of claim 1, Applicant argues that “"LLM may have a significant number of parameters in a deep neural network (e.g., transformer architecture), for example, at least 1 billion, at least 15 billion, at least 135 billion, at least 175 billion, at least 500 billion, at least 1 trillion, at least 1.5 trillion parameters.... an LLM has significant parameter size and the amount of computational power for inference or training the LLM is high." Therefore, reducing the size of the input provided to the machine learning based language model improves the efficiency of execution of the machine learning based language model”.
In response to the preceding argument, Examiner respectfully points out that, as presently presented, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the identifying limitation cover performance of the limitation in the human mind, with or without pen and paper, and therefore, it is not clear how such limitation correlates with the described improvements, or the reduction of size input provided to the LLM.
In regards to claim 1, Applicant argues that “the claimed process provides concrete improvements to computer functionality”, and more specifically, including “efficient processing of large-scale unstructured data” and “improving computational efficiency of processing by machine learning based language model by reducing the input size”.
In response to the preceding argument, Examiner respectfully points out that, as presently presented, the elements “large-scale unstructured data” and limitations related to the “reducing input size” element are not recited in the claims, and therefore, it is not clear how the improvements correlate with the claims. Furthermore, as described in the rejections above, the limitations of the claim as presently presented, are recited such that they cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, with the aid of pen and paper, therefore, are directed to an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” of abstract ideas, without significantly more. Rejections under 35 USC § 101 are hereby sustained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL PEREZ-ARROYO whose telephone number is (571)272-8969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:30pm, Alt Friday, EST.
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 at 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 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.
/RAQUEL PEREZ-ARROYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights