DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's reply filed 4/22/2026.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10, 14, 17, and 20 have been amended and claims 3, 6, 11-12, and 18-19 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 13-17, and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Priority
This application claims priority of Provisional Application 63/533994 filed on 8/22/2023. Applicant's claim for the benefit of this prior-filed application is acknowledged.
Response to Amendments
The previously pending 35 USC 103 rejection has been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s claim amendments. Please see below for reasoning.
The previously pending claim objection has been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s claim amendments.
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, but do not overcome the previously pending 35 USC 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 13-17, and 20, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because the pending claims are not directed toward an abstract idea and integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has already set forth a prima facie case under 35 USC 101. The Examiner has clearly pointed out the limitations directed towards the abstract idea, what the additional elements are and why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and why the additional elements and remaining limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further argues the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed vector and embedding of values are inputs by a human user via inputting search parameters. Then a search model or engine is used to filter the content, where the analysis of filtering content for a human to interpret is part of the abstract idea. The Examiner then asserts that use of a LLM and parsing is recited at such a high level of generality that it merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner notes that using historical data and further using a LLM on news articles further narrows the abstract idea by further defining how the analysis is performed. The Applicant does not properly identify the additional elements. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues there is an improvement to machine learning, but the claims only recite generic use of machine learning for filtering content taking into account specific pieces of data. While the data being used is defined specifically the LLM for example is recited at a very high level of generality amounting to generic implementation on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05). The use of the LLM on news articles narrows the abstract idea by further filtering the results based on the human users inputs, which may improve the results output to the human user, but is not improving the machine learning or computer, but rather merely using the machine learning and computer as tools for implementing the abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant does not address the non-statutory category of inventions of claims 14-17 and 20. The Examiner strongly recommends amending in non-transitory into those claims to overcome the rejections.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In the instant case (Step 1), claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, and 13 are directed toward a process, which are statutory categories of invention
Claims 20 are directed toward a transitory signal, and claims 14-17 are directed toward software per se; which are NOT statutory categories of invention.
Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims are directed toward a method for generating a personalized analysis for a user of network based content obtained from a plurality of network sources using a user profile of the user in conjunction with a large language model (LLM), the network sources available over a communications network, the method comprising the steps of: assembling the user profile to contain user profile data including financial instrument information for a set of financial instruments selected from the group consisting of: stocks; bonds; mutual funds; exchange-traded funds; and real estate investment trusts, and user interest data associated with the user, the financial information comprising a first history of instrument trading performed by the user, and the user interest data comprising a second history of user selected content corresponding to the financial instruments obtained from the plurality of network sources comprising reading materials, stock tickers, earnings report, and/or market sectors; storing the user profile data for the first history in a storage for use as a set of content search parameters and storing user interest data for the second history in the storage for use as a set of content filters; generating a vector embedding from the content search parameters by encoding information selected from the group consisting of: text data; documents; image data; and audio data from the first history into a numerical vector representation of the content search parameters; processing the vector embedding using an embedding model to determine matching news articles by comparing the content search parameters to the network based content obtained from a set of network sources using the embeddings model, the set of network sources selected from the plurality of network sources, and the network based content being a plurality of news articles; processing the matching news articles and one or more content filters from the set of content filters using an LLM in order to derive a chain of thought based output relevant to the matching news articles and the one or more content filters; requesting the LLM to determine one or more insights using the chain of thought based output in order to generate the personalized analysis, comprising parsing the matching news articles using the LLM to further filter the matching news articles using the one or more content filters; generating an insight notification to include the personalized analysis including the one or more insights; and sending the insight notification over the communications network to the user for subsequent processing (claims 1, 14, and 20) (Organizing Human Activity), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106.05). The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are analyzing financial instrument information compared to interest data to see what news articles match input parameters and determining insights of personal users to make determinations using models and vectors, which is a commercial interaction.
Dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7-10, 13, and 15-17 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, where any additional elements introduced are discussed below.
Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the independent claims additionally recite “storing the user profile data in a storage; storing user interest data in the storage (claims 1, 14, and 20)”, which are additional elements that do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the independent claims additionally recite “a plurality of network sources; the network sources available over a communications network; in a storage (claim 1);” “computer system; the system comprising: a set of instructions stored on a computer readable medium for causing one or more computer processors to; a plurality of network sources; the network sources available over a communications network; in a storage (claim 14);” “computer readable media having stored instructions thereon for execution by a computer processor; a plurality of network sources; the network sources available over a communications network; in a storage (claim 20)”, which are additional elements that do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05) and are recited at such a high level of generality. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computer or other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology.
In addition, dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7-10, 13, and 15-17 further narrow the abstract idea and recite no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims merely add the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05). Further, method; System; and Product Independent claims 1, 14, and 20 recite “a plurality of network sources; the network sources available over a communications network; in a storage (claim 1);” “computer system; the system comprising: a set of instructions stored on a computer readable medium for causing one or more computer processors to; a plurality of network sources; the network sources available over a communications network; in a storage (claim 14);” “computer readable media having stored instructions thereon for execution by a computer processor; a plurality of network sources; the network sources available over a communications network; in a storage (claim 20); however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0040 and Figures 1-2. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the independent claims additionally recite “storing the user profile data in a storage; storing user interest data in the storage (claims 1, 14, and 20)”, which are additional elements that do not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because storing data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2, 4-5, 7-10, 13, and 15-17 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and present no additional elements that provide significantly more. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 14-19 are directed toward a “computer system” (a system under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim limitations however do not recite any structural elements of the system. The system claim elements in claim 14 include “a set of instructions stored on a computer readable medium” (which may be entirely software) because the limitations are merely recited as being logic/instructions implemented by a processor because the only recite piece of the system is the set of instructions, where computer executable instructions comprise entirely software. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, software per se. The Examiner recommends amending the claimed limitations to positively recite structure (e.g. a computer or electrical hardware component(s), firmware, a non-transitory computer storage medium that stores instructions) to aid in overcoming the rejection (e.g. the system comprising: a processor) (See MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 20 recites “a computer readable media having stored instructions thereon for execution by a computer processor for generating a personalized analysis for a user of network based content obtained from a plurality of network sources using a user profile of the user in conjunction with a large language model (LLM), the network sources available over a communications network, the computer processor executing the stored instructions to” where the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable media covers the forms of non-transitory tangible medial and transitory propagating signal per se when the specification is silent. The claims do not positively recite any of the structure mentioned. See MPEP 2111.01. Since the claims are drawn to a computer readable medium and the specification is silent, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed cir 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C 101, Aug 24, 2009; p. 2. 7. Applicant advised to amend the claim to recite "non-transitory computer readable media” to overcome rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 (See MPEP 2106.03).
Allowable over 35 USC 103
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 13-17, and 20 are allowable over the prior art, but remain rejected under §101 for the reasons set forth above. Independent claims 1, 14, and 20 disclose generating a personalized analysis for a user by assembling a profile of financial information containing histories, generating vector embeddings from the search parameters by encoding specific pieces of information and processing the embeddings to determine matching news articles and using a LLM to determine insights from the chain of thought by parsing the news articles and outputting the results.
Regarding a possible 103 rejection: The closest prior art of record is:
Sumant (US 2023/0245234 A1) – which discloses integrate cash network decision optimization for budgeting and forecasting.
Stading (US 2008/0243785 A1) – which discloses determining search results based on specific users and specific inputs.
Zhou (US 2025/0348911 A1) – which discloses analyzing stored data using different AI and LLM’s to rank outputs that should be given to users.
The prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all particulars of the limitations as recited in claims 1, 14, and 20, such as generating a personalized analysis for a user by assembling a profile of financial information containing histories, generating vector embeddings from the search parameters by encoding specific pieces of information and processing the embeddings to determine matching news articles and using a LLM to determine insights from the chain of thought by parsing the news articles and outputting the results. While individual features may be known per se, there is no teaching or suggestion absent applicants’ own disclosure to combine these features other than with impermissible hindsight and the combination/arrangement of features are not found in analogous art. Specifically the claimed “a method for generating a personalized analysis for a user of network based content obtained from a plurality of network sources using a user profile of the user in conjunction with a large language model (LLM), the network sources available over a communications network, the method comprising the steps of: assembling the user profile to contain user profile data including financial instrument information for a set of financial instruments selected from the group consisting of: stocks; bonds; mutual funds; exchange-traded funds; and real estate investment trusts, and user interest data associated with the user, the financial information comprising a first history of instrument trading performed by the user, and the user interest data comprising a second history of user selected content corresponding to the financial instruments obtained from the plurality of network sources comprising reading materials, stock tickers, earnings report, and/or market sectors; storing the user profile data for the first history in a storage for use as a set of content search parameters and storing user interest data for the second history in the storage for use as a set of content filters; generating a vector embedding from the content search parameters by encoding information selected from the group consisting of: text data; documents; image data; and audio data from the first history into a numerical vector representation of the content search parameters; processing the vector embedding using an embedding model to determine matching news articles by comparing the content search parameters to the network based content obtained from a set of network sources using the embeddings model, the set of network sources selected from the plurality of network sources, and the network based content being a plurality of news articles; processing the matching news articles and one or more content filters from the set of content filters using an LLM in order to derive a chain of thought based output relevant to the matching news articles and the one or more content filters; requesting the LLM to determine one or more insights using the chain of thought based output in order to generate the personalized analysis, comprising parsing the matching news articles using the LLM to further filter the matching news articles using the one or more content filters; generating an insight notification to include the personalized analysis including the one or more insights; and sending the insight notification over the communications network to the user for subsequent processing (as required by independent claims 1, 14, and 20)”, thus rendering claims 1, 14, 20 and their dependent claims as allowable over the prior art.
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.
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0504. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM.
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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights